Thursday, February 21, 2013
How Vinita Kamte used RTI to nail Control Room's negligence during 26/11 attack - Moneylife
How Vinita Kamte used RTI to nail Control Room's negligence during 26/11 attack - Moneylife
Three years have passed by since the 26/11 Mumbai terror attack in which the country's three most brilliant police officers, Hemant Karkare, Ashok Kamte and Vijay Salaskar were killed. Despite Mr Kamte's wife Vinita establishing through call log records procured under the RTI Act, the negligence of the Police Control Room which clearly led to the unfortunate tragedy, no action has been taken against those guilty for it
Call log records procured from the Mumbai Police under the RTI Act proved that negligence in communication by the Control Room to officers on Ground Zero at Cama Hospital on the Mumbai terror night of 26 November 2008, led to the unfortunate loss of lives of India's three brilliant police officers—Hemant Karkare, Ashok Kamte and Vijay Salaskar. Vinita Kamte, wife of Late Ashok Kamte, who established this fact, was made to run from pillar to post to procure vital information from Mumbai Police under the RTI Act. An account worth rewinding three years after the terror attack as it reflects the tenacity of an individual to challenge a government system interested only in cover-ups. It also establishes that come what may, the government will support its officers who showed no sense of duty during such circumstances, for allegedly its own vested interest. It also, at the same time, reminds one of the immense powers of the RTI Act. It will also serve as an inspiration to others who are treated with contempt by the government in maintaining secrecy of information which is rightly the affected citizen’s! It also proves that you must have a dogged determination to pursue your RTI application and not expect replies to fall into your lap, at the first go.
Why did Vinita Kamte invoke the RTI Act?
Because, after her husband, Ashok Kamte, additional commissioner, eastern region, Mumbai was killed along with anti-terrorist squad chief Hemant Karkare and encounter specialist Vijay Salaskar, the press statements given by the Mumbai Police and the state government implied they foolishly came together and died, without giving a fight. The popular statements being: “We don’t know how they went together'”, “they met there fortuitously (by chance) (as stated by the superficial Ram Pradhan Committee Report, too)” and “they did not understand the gravity of the situation.”'
Being a senior police officer’s wife, she first directly contacted Mumbai Police
28 January 2009: She wrote a letter to the commissioner of police, Mumbai, requesting for Ashok’s call log records on both the mobile networks—Motorola and Ericsson. This would establish the communication between the Control Room and the mobile phones of Ashok Kamte.
31 January 2009: Vinita receives a reply from the Mumbai Police Commissioner stating that the joint commissioner of police has been “directed to take further necessary action in the matter”. However, Vinita waited for a month but she got no response after which she was compelled to use the RTI Act.
4 March 2009: Vinita files a RTI application with the Public Information Officers (Assistant Commissioner of Police, Co-ordination) at the Commissioner of Police office, Mumbai. She requests certified copies of call log records (wireless) in both the written form as well as audio transcripts.
4 April 2009: Quite predictably, the PIO rejects the application citing Section 8 (h) which states that information can be denied as “information which would impede the process of investigation or apprehension or prosecution of offenders”. The PIO had also enclosed a letter by joint CP Rakesh Maria which stated, “Please reject the information sought by Mrs Vinita Kamte under the RTI Act. The information cannot be given to her under Sec 8 (h) of the said Act.”'
29 April 2009: Vinita files first an appeal with the appellate authority, deputy commissioner of police, SM Sabade.
25 May 2009: Mr Sabade orders that the PIO was wrong in rejecting her request of call log records without applying his mind as to why he is doing so and has depended solely on Mr Maria’s letter which also does not specify the reason for rejection. He states that Mr Kamte and the other officers had laid down their lives for the country and it was wrong to reject Mrs Kamte’s request on baseless grounds. However, in his order he allowed only inspection of records and denied Photostat copies/CDs of the same. This was in total contradiction of the RTI Act which gives the right to the citizen to procure copies.
3 June 2009: Nevertheless, Vinita’s twin sister, Revati Dere who is an established advocate at the Bombay High Court and who helped Vinita immensely in analyzing the call log records went for inspection nevertheless. After keeping her waiting for quite a while, a sub inspector put before her some loose sheets which were Photostat copies of the written call log records. When Revati demanded that she would like to inspect the original call log records. She was told that they were handed over to the Ram Pradhan Committee Report. He asked them to come on 6th June by which time he will get the original documents.
8 June 2009: Revati was told that the originals were not as yet procured.
9 June 2009: Vinita wrote to the members of the Ram Pradhan Committee report requesting that, since the work of the Commission is over, could they send back the original call log records back to the Mumbai police as she would like to inspect them under RTI.
11 June 2009: Shockingly, V Balchandran, member of the Ram Pradhan Committee replied via email stating that the committee had received only the certified copies of the call log records—which meant, the Mumbai Police had not provided the original call log records to them. On the same day, Vinita wrote to the Commissioner of Police regarding this issue.
12 June 2009: Mumbai Police suddenly realizes it needs to consult its legal department over the order given by the Appellate Authority Mr Sabade in allowing inspection of call log records. Isn’t this a joke?
7 July 2009: Mr Prasad stated to Vinita that legal advice was already sought and again told Vinita she could only ‘see'’ the documents and not have Photostat copies.
20 July 2009: Vinita wrote to Mr Prasad saying that while she will go ahead and ‘see'’ the records, she reserves the right to go into second appeal to have copies.
29 and 30 July 2009: Vinita sends her representatives for inspection of call log records but they were not shown the originals. Even the audio call log records shown were dated 6th January, a month and a half after the incident, so certainly not the original recording.
4 August 2009: Vinita files a separate RTI application seeking call log records, written and audio, made to Police Control Room no 100 on the night of 26/11. Her application was rejected on 4th September on flimsy grounds. She filed the first appeal to the first appellate authority and received the same reply after several months.
21 August 2009: Vinita files a second appeal to the state chief information commissioner seeking the original copies of the call logs, both written and audio.
15 October 2009: The state chief information commissioner, Mumbai allowed her appeal and directed Mumbai Police to give her certified copies of the original call log records—written and audio—within 30 days. That’s how she finally got her information.
What was the scandalous information she got from these call log records?
That, Ashok Kamte did not go there hurriedly or by chance as was being portrayed by the state home ministry and Mumbai Police. He was called from his Eastern Region where he was carrying out nakabandi, to South Mumbai by Mumbai’s Police Commissioner
That, ATS Chief Hemant Karkare at 11.24pm had asked for police reinforcement of at least 150 policemen to seal the front side of the Cama Hospital (they were at the rear end where dreaded terrorists Ajmal Kasab and Mohammed Ismail were firing from their AK-47 guns towards the officers and were also hurling grenades). He also ordered in that call log record, to call the Army immediately.
That, after the three officers lay injured, two police vans—one after three minutes of the firing in the Rang Bhavan Lane adjacent to Cama Hospital—passed by but did not stop for help or report to the Control Room. Then after about 30 minutes, another police vehicle passed by, but despite the officers lying on the road, profusely bleeding, the vehicle did not stop for help
That, while the Mumbai Police claims to have sent 150 policemen as per instructions of Mr Karkare, they were not around probably because they were not asked to specifically report to Me Karkare or Mr Kamte, a basic protocol adopted while giving such instructions That, more than two dozen calls were made from nearby residents of the Cama Hospital (before the skirmish between the officers and the two terrorists) urging the constables who answered the phones to send police immediately as two terrorists were lurking around in their housing society premises and filling ammunition in their guns. None of these details were reported by the Control Room to the three officers at the back gate of the Cama Hospital
If the calls to no. 100 from the public were informed by the Control Room to Mr Karkare and Mr Kamte, they would have known that the two terrorists had escaped from the front gate of Cama Hospital (note that Mr Karkare’s orders to send police to front gate was clearly not taken cognizance of) and had taken a right turn into the Rang Bhavan Lane and perhaps the story would have been reversed—the two terrorists would have been killed. Also the control room should have on its own accord sent police as per the information by the public
Due to delay in taking the three injured officers, probably Mr Kamte and Mr Salaskar died due to profuse bleeding. Mr Kamte was bleeding through the shoulder and only a bullet had superficially hit his head and exited. Mr Salaskar was alive for 10-12 minutes after he along with the two officers was taken to the hospital after a good 40 minutes of they being injured
So, what happened despite such hard-hitting evidence brought forward by Vinita? Nothing. Officers who showed utter negligence have been promoted. Four additional commissioners, who have survived being posted in Mumbai for 20 years or more, ran away from duty that night, as stated later by the Mumbai police commissioner, but no action has been taken against them. If it was the Army, they would have faced court martial!
Can we expect good and competent officers to come forward in case of another such terror attack? Probably not, considering the treatment given to these three officers who decided to lead in the front, rather than give it all in the hands of constables and junior police officers who were not equipped to handle AK-47s, leave alone operate them. And yet, they were criticized of ineptness, posthumously.
(Vinita Deshmukh is a senior editor, author and convener of Pune Metro Jagruti Abhiyaan. She can be reached at vinitapune@gmail.com.)
http://www.moneylife.in/article/how-vinita-kamte-used-rti-to-nail-control-rooms-negligence-during-2611-attack/21855.html
சிறுவயதில் பாலியல் தொல்லைக்குள்ளானேன் - ரவிசங்கர் மகள் அனோஷ்கா
சிறுவயதில் பாலியல் தொல்லைக்குள்ளானேன் - ரவிசங்கர் மகள் அனோஷ்கா
டெல்லி: சிறு வயதில் நானும் பாலியல் தொல்லைக்குள்ளானேன் என்று கூறியுள்ளார் மறைந்த சிதார் மேதை ரவிசங்கரின் மகள் அனோஷ்கா.
உலக பெண்கள் உரிமைப் பிரசார இயக்கத்திற்கு ஆதரவாக ஒரு வீடியோ செய்தி வெளியிட்டுள்ளார் அனோஷ்கா. அதில்தான் இந்த பரபரப்புத் தகவலை அவர் வெளியிட்டுள்ளார்.
தனது குடும்ப நண்பர் ஒருவரால் தான் சிறுமியாக இருக்கும்போது பலமுறை பாலியல் ரீதியான தொல்லைகளுக்குள்ளானதாக அவர் கூறியுள்ளார்.
இதுகுறித்து அவர் கூறுகையில், பெண்களுக்கு எதிரான வன்முறைகளுக்கு எதிராக அனைவரும் ஒருங்கிணைந்து குரல் கொடுக்க வேண்டும். அந்த எண்ணத்தில்தான் எனது ஆதரவைத் தெரிவிக்க முன்வந்தேன்.
எனது இந்த ஆதரவுச் செய்தியை, டெல்லியில் டிசம்பர் 16ம் தேதி ஓடும் பேருந்தில் காமுகர்களால் பாலியல் பலாத்காரம் செய்யப்பட்டு, படுகாயமடைந்து பின்னர் பரிதாபமாக உயிரிழந்த மருத்துவ மாணவிக்கு சமர்ப்பிக்கிறேன்.
நானும் கூட சிறு வயதில், சிறுமியாக இருந்தபோது பாலியல் தொல்லைக்குள்ளாவள்தான். பல ஆண்டுகள் எனது குடும்ப நண்பர் ஒருவரால் நான் பாலியல் தொல்லைக்குள்ளானேன். அவர் மீது எனது குடும்பத்தினர், எனது பெற்றோர் மிகுந்த நம்பிக்கை வைத்திருந்தனர். ஆனால் அதை அவர் மீறி நடந்து கொண்டார்.
எல்லாப் பெண்களுமே ஒரு கட்டத்தில் இப்படிப்பட்ட தொல்லைகளில் சிக்க நேரிடும் என்பதை பின்னர் உணர்ந்தேன். அந்தரங்கப் பகுதிகளில் தொடுவது, தடவுவது, கிள்ளுவது, வார்த்தைகளில் ஆபாசம் கலந்து பேசுவது போன்றவை பெண்களுக்கு எதிராக பெருமளவில் நடைபெறும் வக்கிரச் செயல்களாகும். அப்போது இதுகுறித்து எனக்கு எதுவும் தெரியவில்லை. எனவே என்னால் எதிர்க்க முடியவில்லை.
இப்போது நான் வளர்ந்து விட்டேன். கடந்த காலத்தை மறந்து விட முயல்கிறேன். இப்போது பாலியல் வன்முறைகள் குறித்து நன்றாக தெரிகிறது. எனவே அதற்கு எதிராக குரல் கொடுக்கிறேன். என்னைப் போல அத்தனை பெண்களும் கிளர்ந்தெழ வேண்டும். இந்தியப் பெண்கள் அனைவருக்கும் ஆதரவாக நான் இருக்கிறேன் என்றார் அனோஷ்கா.
அனோஷ்காவும் சிதார் கலைஞர்தான். அமெரிக்காவில் பிறந்த இவர் தற்போது லண்டனில் வசித்து வருகிறார்.
Story first published: Thursday, February 14, 2013, 14:50 [IST]
டெல்லி: சிறு வயதில் நானும் பாலியல் தொல்லைக்குள்ளானேன் என்று கூறியுள்ளார் மறைந்த சிதார் மேதை ரவிசங்கரின் மகள் அனோஷ்கா.
உலக பெண்கள் உரிமைப் பிரசார இயக்கத்திற்கு ஆதரவாக ஒரு வீடியோ செய்தி வெளியிட்டுள்ளார் அனோஷ்கா. அதில்தான் இந்த பரபரப்புத் தகவலை அவர் வெளியிட்டுள்ளார்.
தனது குடும்ப நண்பர் ஒருவரால் தான் சிறுமியாக இருக்கும்போது பலமுறை பாலியல் ரீதியான தொல்லைகளுக்குள்ளானதாக அவர் கூறியுள்ளார்.
இதுகுறித்து அவர் கூறுகையில், பெண்களுக்கு எதிரான வன்முறைகளுக்கு எதிராக அனைவரும் ஒருங்கிணைந்து குரல் கொடுக்க வேண்டும். அந்த எண்ணத்தில்தான் எனது ஆதரவைத் தெரிவிக்க முன்வந்தேன்.
எனது இந்த ஆதரவுச் செய்தியை, டெல்லியில் டிசம்பர் 16ம் தேதி ஓடும் பேருந்தில் காமுகர்களால் பாலியல் பலாத்காரம் செய்யப்பட்டு, படுகாயமடைந்து பின்னர் பரிதாபமாக உயிரிழந்த மருத்துவ மாணவிக்கு சமர்ப்பிக்கிறேன்.
நானும் கூட சிறு வயதில், சிறுமியாக இருந்தபோது பாலியல் தொல்லைக்குள்ளாவள்தான். பல ஆண்டுகள் எனது குடும்ப நண்பர் ஒருவரால் நான் பாலியல் தொல்லைக்குள்ளானேன். அவர் மீது எனது குடும்பத்தினர், எனது பெற்றோர் மிகுந்த நம்பிக்கை வைத்திருந்தனர். ஆனால் அதை அவர் மீறி நடந்து கொண்டார்.
எல்லாப் பெண்களுமே ஒரு கட்டத்தில் இப்படிப்பட்ட தொல்லைகளில் சிக்க நேரிடும் என்பதை பின்னர் உணர்ந்தேன். அந்தரங்கப் பகுதிகளில் தொடுவது, தடவுவது, கிள்ளுவது, வார்த்தைகளில் ஆபாசம் கலந்து பேசுவது போன்றவை பெண்களுக்கு எதிராக பெருமளவில் நடைபெறும் வக்கிரச் செயல்களாகும். அப்போது இதுகுறித்து எனக்கு எதுவும் தெரியவில்லை. எனவே என்னால் எதிர்க்க முடியவில்லை.
இப்போது நான் வளர்ந்து விட்டேன். கடந்த காலத்தை மறந்து விட முயல்கிறேன். இப்போது பாலியல் வன்முறைகள் குறித்து நன்றாக தெரிகிறது. எனவே அதற்கு எதிராக குரல் கொடுக்கிறேன். என்னைப் போல அத்தனை பெண்களும் கிளர்ந்தெழ வேண்டும். இந்தியப் பெண்கள் அனைவருக்கும் ஆதரவாக நான் இருக்கிறேன் என்றார் அனோஷ்கா.
அனோஷ்காவும் சிதார் கலைஞர்தான். அமெரிக்காவில் பிறந்த இவர் தற்போது லண்டனில் வசித்து வருகிறார்.
Story first published: Thursday, February 14, 2013, 14:50 [IST]
Even if husband is completely in employed and lost job due to wife he has to pay maintenance !!! Long live anti male thinking !!!
Comments : courts and society have been anti male . But some cases clearly prove that what applies to the geese does NOT apply to the gander !!!
Here is a case where both husband and wife have both sought maintenance from each other
neither party has proof of the other person's income
Still the court decrees main fence only for the wife
".........Till the learned trial Judge arrives at a decision I direct that the respondent/husband to pay @ Rs. 1800/-(Rupees One thousand eight hundred only) per month as maintenance to the petitioner/ wife and will go on paying the same month by month by sending the same to the petitioner/wife through Money Order. The first such payment is to be sent by the respondent/husband within a fortnight from date and he will send the amount thereafter within seventh of each English Calendar. The respondent-husband is also directed to pay Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five thousand) only in two equal instalments within three months from date to the petitioner/wife towards litigation costs and the respondent/husband will send this litigation costs directly to the petitioner/wife through Money Order. The Revislonal Application is thus disposed........."
========= case =========
Smt. Chandana Guha Roy vs Goutam Guha Roy on 26 September, 2003
Calcutta High Court
Smt. Chandana Guha Roy vs Goutam Guha Roy on 26 September, 2003
Equivalent citations: AIR 2004 Cal 36, I (2005) DMC 607
Author: A K Mitra
Bench: A K Mitra
ORDER
Arun Kumar Mitra, J.
1. This revisional application has been made challenging the Order No. 21 dated 4-2-2002 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, 5th Court, Alipore in Misc. Case No. 5 of 2001 arising out of MAT Suit No. 54/2000. The husband/O.P. filed a Matrimonial Suit being MAT Suit No. 54/ 2000 praying for divorce. The petitioner got married with the respondent and the marriage was solemnised according to Hindu Rites and Customs on 9-4-1998. The petitioner alleged that she was sent to have parental home by the husband-respondent on 26-7-2000 and the petitioner had to depend on her father. The petitioner did not pay the single farthing to the petitioner even if when she became ill, her medical expenses were not also borne by the husband. According to the petitioner, she was tortured when she was in the matrimonial home and ultimately when the petitioner was forced to go to her parental house the respondent did not pay or did not look after the petitioner and as such the petitioner had to pass her days with great financial hardship. In such a circumstance the petitioner filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 claiming alimony pendente lite and the said petition filed in the said Matrimonial Suit was numbered as Misc. Case No. 5/ 2001. The petitioner also stated that she has also filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Barasat which is still pending. According to the petitioner, the husband-respondent is a diploma-holder in Mechanical Engineering (L.M.E.) and he is an employee of Garrison Engineering Company Pvt. Ltd. and he earns Rs. 10,000/- per month. The petitioner claimed alimony pendente lite to the tune of Rs. 3000/- per month. The husband-respondent has also filed an application for maintenance against the wife claiming that the wife is a graduate and out of private tuition she earns Rs. 5000/- per month and the husband has claimed maintenance of Rs. 2000/- per month from the wife. The husband-respondent filed objection before the trial Court to the application for maintenance filed by the petitioner under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. In the said objection the husband-respondent submitted that he was the store-in-charge of Garrison Engineering Company. The petitioner-wife filed a criminal case before Maniktala Police Station and the respondent-husband was arrested in connection with the said criminal case and when he came out on bail his service was terminated and since then he is unemployed and moving like a vagabond. The respondent-husband also filed an application for maintenance claiming alimony to the tune of Rs. 2000/- per month and alleging that since the wife-petitioner is earning Rs. 5000/- per month out of private coaching, he is entitled to get maintenance. After hearing the wife-petitioner and the husband-O.P. before the trial Court, the learned Trial Judge rejected both the petitions -- one filed by the petitioner-wife and the other filed by the husband-respondent.
2. Challenging the aforesaid rejection order the wife has come to this Court.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Trial Judge did not exercise his jurisdiction properly and without any application of mind or without considering the provision of statute or without considering the evidence on record, the learned Trial Judge passed the Impugned order. The learned Counsel submits that the learned Trial Judge should have considered that in view of the provisions of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act the burden of proof of income of the husband was lying with the husband since the fact of his income and the quantum of his income cannot be within the knowledge in specific of the wife-petitioner. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also submits that the basis of the impugned order is surmise and not evidence on record. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the wife as disclosed certain income of the husband and thereafter the husband-respondent should have disclosed in evidence regarding his actual income. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the learned Trial Judge went on wrong in deciding that since the petitioner is an Arts Graduate she cannot sit idle and arrived at a wrong presumption that she must have some earning. The learned Counsel also submits that the learned Trial Judge failed to consider that the husband-respondent is also a Diploma Engineer and if the Arts Graduate can have some earning the Diploma Engineer cannot be also a vagabond. The learned Counsel placed reliance on a judgment , Chitra Sengupta v. Dhrubajyoti Sengupta. In this judgment the Hon'ble Division Bench of this High Court observed "but that apart, monthly income of a husband may not very often be within the knowledge of the wife, particularly in a case like this where the relation is considerably strained and the spouses are living a part for a considerably long period". The Hon'ble Division Bench also observed that onus under Section 106 of the Evidence Act would be on the husband to disclose the same and if he fails to do so without any good reasons, the Court would be entitled to presume against him and to accept the allegations of the wife as to the amount of income derived from such reasonable sources as would be available to her. The Hon'ble Division Bench in this case quoting from a decision reported in AIR 1917 Privy Council (sic) observed "a practice has grown up in Indian Procedure of those in possession of important documents or information lying by, trusting to the abstract doctrine of the onus of proof, and failing accordingly to furnish to the Courts the best material for this decision. With regard to third parties, this may be right enough; they have no responsibility for the conduct of the suit; but with regard to the parties to the suit it is, in Their Lordships opinion, an inversion of sound practice for those desiring to rely upon a certain state of facts to withhold from the Court the written evidence in their possession which would throw light upon the proposition."
4. The Hon'ble Division Bench also observed that these observations were endorsed by the Privy Council again in Rameswar Sing v. Bajit Lal Pathak AIR 1929 Privy Council 95 at page 99 and having been quoted with the approval by the Supreme Court in Hiralal v. Badkulal, Their Lordships observed "we are of opinion that as a matter of onus under Section 106 of the Evidence Act and also otherwise under the principle enunciated in the aforesaid decisions of the Privy Council and the Supreme Court, it was for the husband to disclose his income and he not having done that and not having also specifically denied the amount alleged by the wife to be his income, we would have to go by such allegation for the purpose of this application. The learned Counsel for the petitioner then relied' in another decision of Hon'ble Division Bench reported in 1986 (90) CWN 816, Somen Ghosh v. Bani Ghosh (nee Sen). The learned Counsel relied on Paragraphs 4 and 5 of this judgment which is quoted hereinbelow :--
"4. The Court under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, has been given a wide discretion in the matter of granting alimony pendente lite but the discretion is judicial and not arbitrary or capricious. It is to be guided on sound principles of matrimonial laws and to be exercised within the ambit of the provisions of the section and having regard to the object of the Act' (vide Mulla's Hindu Law, 15th Ed. Page 873). In fixing the sum of maintenance and legal expenses to be paid to the petitioner, who makes an application under Section 24 of the Act, the Court shall have regard to the petitioner's own income and income of the respondent. But we are unable to accept the contention of Mr. Mukherjee on behalf of the petitioner, that as there was no evidence that his client was receiving any income or salary, no order under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act ought to have been made in favour of the wife, the opposite party to the Revisional Application. Mr. Mukherjee in this connection had drawn our attention to the discussion under the heading "Has No Independent Income Sufficient" in Mulla's Hindu Law, 15th Ed. Pages 872-73. The said passage does not really support the contentions of Mr. Mukherjee. Because it has been observed therein : "It is also implicit in the section that the order would not be made if the respondent to the application is shown to have no property nor earning capacity or is shown to have very small income. But the fact that the respondent is not receiving any income from property for the time being would not be sufficient answers to the claim.....................". Reference may also be made to the discussion on the point at Page 885 of the aforesaid book on the subject of assessment of quantum of maintenance payable under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The learned author has inter alia observed : "It would also be open to take into account the earning capacity of the husband as well as the wife. The Court has ample discretion and in a deserving case may ascertained not. only what money's the husband had but what money he could have had if he liked and take into consideration his capacity and ability to provide maintenance. The Court will look at the realities and not permit itself to be misled by appear ances". Rayden on Divorce, Vol. I, 13th Edn. in Notes at Pages 872-873 with reference to the provisions of Matrimonial Clauses Act, 1973 makes similar observations.
5.5 In the Instant case, the husband was undisputedly at one time employed in a company named Kohinoor Rubber Works. In her evidence given in the Court below the wife had no doubt stated that she did not know where her husband worked now. In her cross-examination, she had denied the suggestion that her husband was out of employment. Although in his evidence the husband, Samar Ghosh, had claimed that he was not employed at present and had to tender resignation as his wife and others held out threats. But he had admitted that he had no paper to show that he had left his work. He also admitted that he had no wit ness for living his job or to show what was his salary. He had also admitted that he got a job at Raniganj but he had left it due to threats by the other party. Again, he had no paper or witness to show that he had lost this job also. In all likelihood, there would be papers in case he had resigned his job. But he did not adduce either oral or documentary evidence to corroborate his claim that he was out of employment. The husband was an ablebodied youngman of about 34 years of age, Although there was no evidence before the Court below of the actual income, if any earned by him, the Court below legitimately could take into consideration his ability to earn a reasonable amount of income."
5. The learned counsel then relied on the decision (Sm. Urmila Devi v. Hari Parkash Bansal). In this judgment it has been observed ; "Thus, if a person is an ablebodied person can be all working, then he suppose to maintain his wife and to pay the maintenance as required under Section 24. It is for the purpose of fixing the amount under Section 24 that the applicant shown income and that of the respondent is to be taken into consideration. In the absence of any income as such of either party is the husband being an ablebodied person and can be all working can be considered as capable of maintaining his wife and thus, liable to pay the interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Act." The learned Counsel then relied on the decision reported in AIR 1994 NOC 61 (Rajasthan) (Anil Kr. v. Smt. Lakshmi Devi). In this judgment it has been observed that the husband has disclosed his income before the Court below which appears to be unbelievable. It is duty of the ablebodied person to earn enough to discharge his legal obligation to maintain his wife and to provide for the subsistence so that the wife is not driven to destitution even when the husband is not earning sufficient money. The provisions have been made to protect the neglected wife against starvation and to tide over the immediate difficulties and to protect her interest during the proceedings which have been foisted upon her by the husband. The proceeding under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act are to be decided in a summary manner and the Court is not expected to try the issue at length then the learned counsel relied on the decision, (Smt. Kanchan v. Kamalendu). In this judgment the Hon'ble single Bench of Bombay High Court observed : "taking into consideration the scheme of Section 24 of the Act either of the spouse in the proceedings on satisfying that they have no independent source of income to support them and claim maintenance pendente lite. Husband is, therefore, equally entitled to claim maintenance. Howsoever, the non-applicant husband will have to satisfy the Court either due to physical or mental disability, he is handicapped to earn and support his livelihood." Then again the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision, (Myra Joseph Braz
Dias v. Joseph Braz Dias). In this decision also the Hon'ble single Judge of Bombay High Court followed the same principle. The learned counsel then relied on the decision
(Vinod Kr. Kejriwal v. Usha Vinod Kejriwal). In this judgment one learned single Judge of Bombay High Court observed that the expression proceedings under Act as provided in Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act cannot be given narrow and restricted meaning. The learned counsel for the appellant thereafter relied on a decision, (Maganbhai Chhotubhai Patel v. Maniben). In this judgment the Hon'ble single Judge of Gujarat High Court when interpreting the provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act observed in the context of that case : "The fact regarding the income of the defendant and the income of the property in possession and management of the father of the defendant was within their special knowledge. They are not third parties. The defendant is the husband and his father is also under a legal obligation to maintain his daughter-in-law from the income of the property which are in his management and possession. Both have committed default. They are withholding the evidence in their possession and are not answering the averments of the plaintiff as provided under Order 8, Rule 5 of the Code. Under the circumstances, the guess work made by the plaintiff-wife and specific averment made by her in para 5 of the plaint that the income of the defendant-husband is 1710 dollars per month and income from the properties in India is Rs. 20,000/- per year is acceptable as evidence. Some assessment of the plaintiff regarding the income of the defendant-husband and the income of the property in possession of his father based upon information of her relatives, which is not controverted specifically by the defendant in his written statement, and in view of the circumstances that neither the defendant nor his father, who is in the management of the said properties in India having stepped into the Witness Box nor they have produced material documents in their possession, requires to be accepted as proof in this case. I, therefore, held that the income of the defendant-husband was 1700 dollars in the year 1969 and in the income from the property in possession and management of the father of the defendant in India was Rs. 20,000/- per year". The learned counsel then lastly relied on a decision, reported in AIR 2001 Jharkhand 61 : (2001 AIR -- Jhar HCR 348) (Smt. Chandrani Sinha v. Koushik Sinha). In this judgment also the Hon'ble High Court at Jharkhand allowed maintenance for the wife. The learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the decision submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Judge should be set aside.
6. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that Section 24 provides that any of the spouse can claim for maintenance. The learned counsel also submits that the wife could not prove the income of the husband in definite conclusion and as such the learned trial Judge rightly rejected the petition for maintenance submitted by the wife. The learned counsel also submits that the husband-respondent has no income inasmuch as the service has been terminated and accordingly as per the provisions of Section 24 he can also claim maintenance from the wife petitioner since the wife-petitioner through private coaching earns Rs. 5000/- and as such the petitioner has claimed maintenance of Rs. 2000/- per month. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that unless the petitioner proves the income of her husband-respondent, on the air maintenance cannot be granted because the quantum is to be calculated.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Considered their rival contentions and also considered the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Judge at the outset let me have a look into the provision of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 are runs as follows :--
24. Where in any proceeding under this Act it appears to the Court that either the wife or the husband, as the case may be has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses or the proceeding, it may, on the application of the wife or husband, order the respondent to pay to the petitioner the expenses of the proceeding, and monthly, during the proceeding such sum as, having regard to the petitioner's own income and the income of the respondent it may seem to the Court to be reasonable.
8. This provision of this statute is very amazing. The other Acts like Indian Divorce Act, the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act does not say about maintenance pendente lite of the wife or the husband.
9. Mulla in this context has observed that the right of a wife for maintenance is an incident of the status or estate of matrimonial. In general, therefore, the husband is bound to defray his wife's costs of any proceeding under this Act and to provide for all alimony, which expression in its strict sense means allowance due to wife from husband on separation from certain causes, has its basis in social conditions in English under which married woman was economically dependent and almost in a position of tutelage to the husband and was intended to secure justice to her when prosecuting or defending proceeding under matrimonial law, it is also recognized that when the wife has separate means sufficient for her defence in subsistence she should not be entitled to alimony nor costs during the proceeding and if the husband has neither property nor earning capacity the Court would not award any interim alimony. It is on these principles that the law relating to matrimonial causes provides for rules for payment of maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings by the husband to the wife this section adopts those principles and those one radical step further when it lays down that any such order can be made not only in favour of the wife but also in favour of the husband.
10. Let us now take the chronology of events in the instant case. In the year 1998 marriage was solemnised according to Hindu Rites. In the year 2000 the petitioner-wife left the matrimonial house and took shelter at her parental home. In the same year the husband-respondent filed a suit for divorce. The wife-petitioner filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure claiming maintenance and subsequently in the suit filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act praying for maintenance pendente lite with litigation cost. After the wife-petitioner filed the application for maintenance the husband-respondent also filed an application claiming maintenance from the wife. Now the learned trial Judge heard both the applications analogously and rejected both the applications. The learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that the husband is no longer in service and he has no income at present at all. The learned trial Judge also observed that it is the settled principle of law that an educated lady cannot be encouraged to sit idle expecting any allowance from her husband. In the instant case the petitioner-wife is a graduate whereas the O.P.-husband has been living a life of vagabond and is vagabond and is totally dependent upon the brothers. I find no reasons for saddling the O.P.-husband with any amount of alimony pendente lite as passing of such order will only re-elected the capricious attitude of the Court upon the husband who has no income at all at present. Likewise appointment at all inclined to saddle the petitioner-wife with any amount of maintenance for maintaining her by thoroughly unemployed husband as claimed in the petition filed by the O.P.-husband as he is able-bodied . The learned Trial Judge, it is not known, wherefrom got this settled principle of law that an educated lady cannot be encouraged to sit idle. It is not known in which law it has been provided. The learned trial Judge in fact advised the petitioner-wife not to sit idle but to do some work then what for the provision of maintenance pendente lite. It is also surprising that the learned trial Judge without any conclusive evidence came to the finding that the husband-O.P. is unemployed. It cannot be said to be believable that in a private firm named Garrison Engineering Company which is a reputed organisation has appointed the O.P.-husband as store-in-charge without appointment letter and has also terminated his job without any letter of termination, far less without any disciplinary proceeding or without any enquiry. It is also surprising that the learned trial Judge accepted that the service of the O.P.-husband in these hard days was terminated and he did not proceed with any legal proceeding challenging the order of dismissal from service. It is also surprising that for a person remaining in custody for more than 48 hours he is to face suspension if he is a Government employee but here the husband-respondent has said that as he was taken to custody, his service was terminated which also cannot be said to be believable. If the learned trial Judge relies on the Bombay High Court decision and observes that the husband-respondent is an able-bodied person and naturally he is not entitled to maintenance, then the learned trial Judge ought to have accepted the ratio of the Judgment in full and should have considered that in that Bombay High Court judgment the Hon'ble Court on that score directed the husband to grant maintenance to the wife. Here the learned trial Judge proceeded to some extent in consideration of the judgment but did not consider the judgment of Bombay High Court in totality.
11. In my opinion, the husband-respondent foisted the divorce suit on the wife and the husband-respondent can very well file a divorce suit to incur expenditure over there for the purpose of divorce and when the question of maintenance arises, the husband says that he is unemployed/vagabond. It is also peculiar that the husband filed a petition under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 claiming maintenance but when his petition was rejected by virtue of this impugned order then he did not challenge the order and did not move any revisional application and only played the role of respondent before this High Court. Since Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act unlike other Acts provides for maintenance of both the husband and the wife, the Court should carefully proceed in the matter for granting maintenance. The trial Court should have considered in this case that the petitioner-husband filed divorce suit incurring cost. The petitioner-husband is a Diploma Engineer and when his service was terminated, he did not challenge the said termination order. The learned Trial Judge was wrong in the calculation that if an Arts Graduate lady can do something and should not sit idle then the learned Trial Judge also should have considered that the petitioner-husband is a Diploma Engineer and he also should not sit idle being able-bodied. In this patriarchal society like ours that weaker sex is to face various troubles to find out a suitable job for maintaining herself. In such cases when considering the claim for maintenance, the Court should assess the conduct of the parties. Now here what is the conduct. In 1998 March, the wife had to find out shelter in her parental home. In the same year the husband filed a suit for divorce, there is no evidence on record that the husband tried for conciliation and incurring expenditure he can file a suit for divorce. He can regularly pay the Lawyers' fees and other expenditures and when the wife files an application for maintenance to encounter that petition takes advantage of the language of Section 24 and files a petition for maintenance. The income of the husband must be within his special knowledge and he did not make any attempt to prove either his actual income or his dismissal from service though Section 106 of the Evidence Act is very clear in this regard. The husband was to disclose his Income as it was within his special knowledge as provided in Section 106 of the Evidence Act, The husband engaged Lawyer before this High Court to defend his case but he did not challenge the order of rejection though his claim for maintenance has been rejected by the same order passed by the learned trial Judge. From this incident the conduct of the husband comes to light. Had the husband-petitioner been prejudicially affected he must have challenged the order of the learned Trial Judge, but, he did not.
12. On consideration of the facts and circumstances and consideration of the evidence on record, I therefore, set aside the order impugned passed by the learned Trial Judge in Misc. Case No. 5 of 2001 in MAT Suit No. 54 of 2000. The learned Trial Judge is directed to hear the Section 24 Application afresh filed by both the wife and the husband in the light of discussions and observation made above. Till the learned trial Judge arrives at a decision I direct that the respondent/husband to pay @ Rs. 1800/-(Rupees One thousand eight hundred only) per month as maintenance to the petitioner/ wife and will go on paying the same month by month by sending the same to the petitioner/wife through Money Order. The first such payment is to be sent by the respondent/husband within a fortnight from date and he will send the amount thereafter within seventh of each English Calendar. The respondent-husband is also directed to pay Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five thousand) only in two equal instalments within three months from date to the petitioner/wife towards litigation costs and the respondent/husband will send this litigation costs directly to the petitioner/wife through Money Order. The Revislonal Application is thus disposed of.
13. There will be no further order as to costs.
14. Urgent xerox certified copies of this Judgment and order, if applied for, will be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible.
Later
15. Learned Advocate for the petitioner prays for a xerox plain copy of the operative portion of this order. Let a xerox plain copy of the operative portion of this order duly countersigned by the Asstt. Registrar (Court) be handed over to the learned Advocate for the petitioner.
Here is a case where both husband and wife have both sought maintenance from each other
neither party has proof of the other person's income
Still the court decrees main fence only for the wife
".........Till the learned trial Judge arrives at a decision I direct that the respondent/husband to pay @ Rs. 1800/-(Rupees One thousand eight hundred only) per month as maintenance to the petitioner/ wife and will go on paying the same month by month by sending the same to the petitioner/wife through Money Order. The first such payment is to be sent by the respondent/husband within a fortnight from date and he will send the amount thereafter within seventh of each English Calendar. The respondent-husband is also directed to pay Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five thousand) only in two equal instalments within three months from date to the petitioner/wife towards litigation costs and the respondent/husband will send this litigation costs directly to the petitioner/wife through Money Order. The Revislonal Application is thus disposed........."
========= case =========
Smt. Chandana Guha Roy vs Goutam Guha Roy on 26 September, 2003
Calcutta High Court
Smt. Chandana Guha Roy vs Goutam Guha Roy on 26 September, 2003
Equivalent citations: AIR 2004 Cal 36, I (2005) DMC 607
Author: A K Mitra
Bench: A K Mitra
ORDER
Arun Kumar Mitra, J.
1. This revisional application has been made challenging the Order No. 21 dated 4-2-2002 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, 5th Court, Alipore in Misc. Case No. 5 of 2001 arising out of MAT Suit No. 54/2000. The husband/O.P. filed a Matrimonial Suit being MAT Suit No. 54/ 2000 praying for divorce. The petitioner got married with the respondent and the marriage was solemnised according to Hindu Rites and Customs on 9-4-1998. The petitioner alleged that she was sent to have parental home by the husband-respondent on 26-7-2000 and the petitioner had to depend on her father. The petitioner did not pay the single farthing to the petitioner even if when she became ill, her medical expenses were not also borne by the husband. According to the petitioner, she was tortured when she was in the matrimonial home and ultimately when the petitioner was forced to go to her parental house the respondent did not pay or did not look after the petitioner and as such the petitioner had to pass her days with great financial hardship. In such a circumstance the petitioner filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 claiming alimony pendente lite and the said petition filed in the said Matrimonial Suit was numbered as Misc. Case No. 5/ 2001. The petitioner also stated that she has also filed an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. before the Chief Judicial Magistrate. Barasat which is still pending. According to the petitioner, the husband-respondent is a diploma-holder in Mechanical Engineering (L.M.E.) and he is an employee of Garrison Engineering Company Pvt. Ltd. and he earns Rs. 10,000/- per month. The petitioner claimed alimony pendente lite to the tune of Rs. 3000/- per month. The husband-respondent has also filed an application for maintenance against the wife claiming that the wife is a graduate and out of private tuition she earns Rs. 5000/- per month and the husband has claimed maintenance of Rs. 2000/- per month from the wife. The husband-respondent filed objection before the trial Court to the application for maintenance filed by the petitioner under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. In the said objection the husband-respondent submitted that he was the store-in-charge of Garrison Engineering Company. The petitioner-wife filed a criminal case before Maniktala Police Station and the respondent-husband was arrested in connection with the said criminal case and when he came out on bail his service was terminated and since then he is unemployed and moving like a vagabond. The respondent-husband also filed an application for maintenance claiming alimony to the tune of Rs. 2000/- per month and alleging that since the wife-petitioner is earning Rs. 5000/- per month out of private coaching, he is entitled to get maintenance. After hearing the wife-petitioner and the husband-O.P. before the trial Court, the learned Trial Judge rejected both the petitions -- one filed by the petitioner-wife and the other filed by the husband-respondent.
2. Challenging the aforesaid rejection order the wife has come to this Court.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned Trial Judge did not exercise his jurisdiction properly and without any application of mind or without considering the provision of statute or without considering the evidence on record, the learned Trial Judge passed the Impugned order. The learned Counsel submits that the learned Trial Judge should have considered that in view of the provisions of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act the burden of proof of income of the husband was lying with the husband since the fact of his income and the quantum of his income cannot be within the knowledge in specific of the wife-petitioner. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also submits that the basis of the impugned order is surmise and not evidence on record. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the wife as disclosed certain income of the husband and thereafter the husband-respondent should have disclosed in evidence regarding his actual income. The learned Counsel for the petitioner also submitted that the learned Trial Judge went on wrong in deciding that since the petitioner is an Arts Graduate she cannot sit idle and arrived at a wrong presumption that she must have some earning. The learned Counsel also submits that the learned Trial Judge failed to consider that the husband-respondent is also a Diploma Engineer and if the Arts Graduate can have some earning the Diploma Engineer cannot be also a vagabond. The learned Counsel placed reliance on a judgment , Chitra Sengupta v. Dhrubajyoti Sengupta. In this judgment the Hon'ble Division Bench of this High Court observed "but that apart, monthly income of a husband may not very often be within the knowledge of the wife, particularly in a case like this where the relation is considerably strained and the spouses are living a part for a considerably long period". The Hon'ble Division Bench also observed that onus under Section 106 of the Evidence Act would be on the husband to disclose the same and if he fails to do so without any good reasons, the Court would be entitled to presume against him and to accept the allegations of the wife as to the amount of income derived from such reasonable sources as would be available to her. The Hon'ble Division Bench in this case quoting from a decision reported in AIR 1917 Privy Council (sic) observed "a practice has grown up in Indian Procedure of those in possession of important documents or information lying by, trusting to the abstract doctrine of the onus of proof, and failing accordingly to furnish to the Courts the best material for this decision. With regard to third parties, this may be right enough; they have no responsibility for the conduct of the suit; but with regard to the parties to the suit it is, in Their Lordships opinion, an inversion of sound practice for those desiring to rely upon a certain state of facts to withhold from the Court the written evidence in their possession which would throw light upon the proposition."
4. The Hon'ble Division Bench also observed that these observations were endorsed by the Privy Council again in Rameswar Sing v. Bajit Lal Pathak AIR 1929 Privy Council 95 at page 99 and having been quoted with the approval by the Supreme Court in Hiralal v. Badkulal, Their Lordships observed "we are of opinion that as a matter of onus under Section 106 of the Evidence Act and also otherwise under the principle enunciated in the aforesaid decisions of the Privy Council and the Supreme Court, it was for the husband to disclose his income and he not having done that and not having also specifically denied the amount alleged by the wife to be his income, we would have to go by such allegation for the purpose of this application. The learned Counsel for the petitioner then relied' in another decision of Hon'ble Division Bench reported in 1986 (90) CWN 816, Somen Ghosh v. Bani Ghosh (nee Sen). The learned Counsel relied on Paragraphs 4 and 5 of this judgment which is quoted hereinbelow :--
"4. The Court under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, has been given a wide discretion in the matter of granting alimony pendente lite but the discretion is judicial and not arbitrary or capricious. It is to be guided on sound principles of matrimonial laws and to be exercised within the ambit of the provisions of the section and having regard to the object of the Act' (vide Mulla's Hindu Law, 15th Ed. Page 873). In fixing the sum of maintenance and legal expenses to be paid to the petitioner, who makes an application under Section 24 of the Act, the Court shall have regard to the petitioner's own income and income of the respondent. But we are unable to accept the contention of Mr. Mukherjee on behalf of the petitioner, that as there was no evidence that his client was receiving any income or salary, no order under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act ought to have been made in favour of the wife, the opposite party to the Revisional Application. Mr. Mukherjee in this connection had drawn our attention to the discussion under the heading "Has No Independent Income Sufficient" in Mulla's Hindu Law, 15th Ed. Pages 872-73. The said passage does not really support the contentions of Mr. Mukherjee. Because it has been observed therein : "It is also implicit in the section that the order would not be made if the respondent to the application is shown to have no property nor earning capacity or is shown to have very small income. But the fact that the respondent is not receiving any income from property for the time being would not be sufficient answers to the claim.....................". Reference may also be made to the discussion on the point at Page 885 of the aforesaid book on the subject of assessment of quantum of maintenance payable under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act. The learned author has inter alia observed : "It would also be open to take into account the earning capacity of the husband as well as the wife. The Court has ample discretion and in a deserving case may ascertained not. only what money's the husband had but what money he could have had if he liked and take into consideration his capacity and ability to provide maintenance. The Court will look at the realities and not permit itself to be misled by appear ances". Rayden on Divorce, Vol. I, 13th Edn. in Notes at Pages 872-873 with reference to the provisions of Matrimonial Clauses Act, 1973 makes similar observations.
5.5 In the Instant case, the husband was undisputedly at one time employed in a company named Kohinoor Rubber Works. In her evidence given in the Court below the wife had no doubt stated that she did not know where her husband worked now. In her cross-examination, she had denied the suggestion that her husband was out of employment. Although in his evidence the husband, Samar Ghosh, had claimed that he was not employed at present and had to tender resignation as his wife and others held out threats. But he had admitted that he had no paper to show that he had left his work. He also admitted that he had no wit ness for living his job or to show what was his salary. He had also admitted that he got a job at Raniganj but he had left it due to threats by the other party. Again, he had no paper or witness to show that he had lost this job also. In all likelihood, there would be papers in case he had resigned his job. But he did not adduce either oral or documentary evidence to corroborate his claim that he was out of employment. The husband was an ablebodied youngman of about 34 years of age, Although there was no evidence before the Court below of the actual income, if any earned by him, the Court below legitimately could take into consideration his ability to earn a reasonable amount of income."
5. The learned counsel then relied on the decision (Sm. Urmila Devi v. Hari Parkash Bansal). In this judgment it has been observed ; "Thus, if a person is an ablebodied person can be all working, then he suppose to maintain his wife and to pay the maintenance as required under Section 24. It is for the purpose of fixing the amount under Section 24 that the applicant shown income and that of the respondent is to be taken into consideration. In the absence of any income as such of either party is the husband being an ablebodied person and can be all working can be considered as capable of maintaining his wife and thus, liable to pay the interim maintenance under Section 24 of the Act." The learned Counsel then relied on the decision reported in AIR 1994 NOC 61 (Rajasthan) (Anil Kr. v. Smt. Lakshmi Devi). In this judgment it has been observed that the husband has disclosed his income before the Court below which appears to be unbelievable. It is duty of the ablebodied person to earn enough to discharge his legal obligation to maintain his wife and to provide for the subsistence so that the wife is not driven to destitution even when the husband is not earning sufficient money. The provisions have been made to protect the neglected wife against starvation and to tide over the immediate difficulties and to protect her interest during the proceedings which have been foisted upon her by the husband. The proceeding under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act are to be decided in a summary manner and the Court is not expected to try the issue at length then the learned counsel relied on the decision, (Smt. Kanchan v. Kamalendu). In this judgment the Hon'ble single Bench of Bombay High Court observed : "taking into consideration the scheme of Section 24 of the Act either of the spouse in the proceedings on satisfying that they have no independent source of income to support them and claim maintenance pendente lite. Husband is, therefore, equally entitled to claim maintenance. Howsoever, the non-applicant husband will have to satisfy the Court either due to physical or mental disability, he is handicapped to earn and support his livelihood." Then again the learned counsel for the petitioner relied on the decision, (Myra Joseph Braz
Dias v. Joseph Braz Dias). In this decision also the Hon'ble single Judge of Bombay High Court followed the same principle. The learned counsel then relied on the decision
(Vinod Kr. Kejriwal v. Usha Vinod Kejriwal). In this judgment one learned single Judge of Bombay High Court observed that the expression proceedings under Act as provided in Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act cannot be given narrow and restricted meaning. The learned counsel for the appellant thereafter relied on a decision, (Maganbhai Chhotubhai Patel v. Maniben). In this judgment the Hon'ble single Judge of Gujarat High Court when interpreting the provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act observed in the context of that case : "The fact regarding the income of the defendant and the income of the property in possession and management of the father of the defendant was within their special knowledge. They are not third parties. The defendant is the husband and his father is also under a legal obligation to maintain his daughter-in-law from the income of the property which are in his management and possession. Both have committed default. They are withholding the evidence in their possession and are not answering the averments of the plaintiff as provided under Order 8, Rule 5 of the Code. Under the circumstances, the guess work made by the plaintiff-wife and specific averment made by her in para 5 of the plaint that the income of the defendant-husband is 1710 dollars per month and income from the properties in India is Rs. 20,000/- per year is acceptable as evidence. Some assessment of the plaintiff regarding the income of the defendant-husband and the income of the property in possession of his father based upon information of her relatives, which is not controverted specifically by the defendant in his written statement, and in view of the circumstances that neither the defendant nor his father, who is in the management of the said properties in India having stepped into the Witness Box nor they have produced material documents in their possession, requires to be accepted as proof in this case. I, therefore, held that the income of the defendant-husband was 1700 dollars in the year 1969 and in the income from the property in possession and management of the father of the defendant in India was Rs. 20,000/- per year". The learned counsel then lastly relied on a decision, reported in AIR 2001 Jharkhand 61 : (2001 AIR -- Jhar HCR 348) (Smt. Chandrani Sinha v. Koushik Sinha). In this judgment also the Hon'ble High Court at Jharkhand allowed maintenance for the wife. The learned counsel for the petitioner relying on the decision submits that the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Judge should be set aside.
6. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that Section 24 provides that any of the spouse can claim for maintenance. The learned counsel also submits that the wife could not prove the income of the husband in definite conclusion and as such the learned trial Judge rightly rejected the petition for maintenance submitted by the wife. The learned counsel also submits that the husband-respondent has no income inasmuch as the service has been terminated and accordingly as per the provisions of Section 24 he can also claim maintenance from the wife petitioner since the wife-petitioner through private coaching earns Rs. 5000/- and as such the petitioner has claimed maintenance of Rs. 2000/- per month. The learned counsel for the respondent submits that unless the petitioner proves the income of her husband-respondent, on the air maintenance cannot be granted because the quantum is to be calculated.
7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. Considered their rival contentions and also considered the impugned order passed by the learned Trial Judge at the outset let me have a look into the provision of Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 are runs as follows :--
24. Where in any proceeding under this Act it appears to the Court that either the wife or the husband, as the case may be has no independent income sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses or the proceeding, it may, on the application of the wife or husband, order the respondent to pay to the petitioner the expenses of the proceeding, and monthly, during the proceeding such sum as, having regard to the petitioner's own income and the income of the respondent it may seem to the Court to be reasonable.
8. This provision of this statute is very amazing. The other Acts like Indian Divorce Act, the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act does not say about maintenance pendente lite of the wife or the husband.
9. Mulla in this context has observed that the right of a wife for maintenance is an incident of the status or estate of matrimonial. In general, therefore, the husband is bound to defray his wife's costs of any proceeding under this Act and to provide for all alimony, which expression in its strict sense means allowance due to wife from husband on separation from certain causes, has its basis in social conditions in English under which married woman was economically dependent and almost in a position of tutelage to the husband and was intended to secure justice to her when prosecuting or defending proceeding under matrimonial law, it is also recognized that when the wife has separate means sufficient for her defence in subsistence she should not be entitled to alimony nor costs during the proceeding and if the husband has neither property nor earning capacity the Court would not award any interim alimony. It is on these principles that the law relating to matrimonial causes provides for rules for payment of maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings by the husband to the wife this section adopts those principles and those one radical step further when it lays down that any such order can be made not only in favour of the wife but also in favour of the husband.
10. Let us now take the chronology of events in the instant case. In the year 1998 marriage was solemnised according to Hindu Rites. In the year 2000 the petitioner-wife left the matrimonial house and took shelter at her parental home. In the same year the husband-respondent filed a suit for divorce. The wife-petitioner filed an application under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure claiming maintenance and subsequently in the suit filed an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act praying for maintenance pendente lite with litigation cost. After the wife-petitioner filed the application for maintenance the husband-respondent also filed an application claiming maintenance from the wife. Now the learned trial Judge heard both the applications analogously and rejected both the applications. The learned trial Judge came to the conclusion that the husband is no longer in service and he has no income at present at all. The learned trial Judge also observed that it is the settled principle of law that an educated lady cannot be encouraged to sit idle expecting any allowance from her husband. In the instant case the petitioner-wife is a graduate whereas the O.P.-husband has been living a life of vagabond and is vagabond and is totally dependent upon the brothers. I find no reasons for saddling the O.P.-husband with any amount of alimony pendente lite as passing of such order will only re-elected the capricious attitude of the Court upon the husband who has no income at all at present. Likewise appointment at all inclined to saddle the petitioner-wife with any amount of maintenance for maintaining her by thoroughly unemployed husband as claimed in the petition filed by the O.P.-husband as he is able-bodied . The learned Trial Judge, it is not known, wherefrom got this settled principle of law that an educated lady cannot be encouraged to sit idle. It is not known in which law it has been provided. The learned trial Judge in fact advised the petitioner-wife not to sit idle but to do some work then what for the provision of maintenance pendente lite. It is also surprising that the learned trial Judge without any conclusive evidence came to the finding that the husband-O.P. is unemployed. It cannot be said to be believable that in a private firm named Garrison Engineering Company which is a reputed organisation has appointed the O.P.-husband as store-in-charge without appointment letter and has also terminated his job without any letter of termination, far less without any disciplinary proceeding or without any enquiry. It is also surprising that the learned trial Judge accepted that the service of the O.P.-husband in these hard days was terminated and he did not proceed with any legal proceeding challenging the order of dismissal from service. It is also surprising that for a person remaining in custody for more than 48 hours he is to face suspension if he is a Government employee but here the husband-respondent has said that as he was taken to custody, his service was terminated which also cannot be said to be believable. If the learned trial Judge relies on the Bombay High Court decision and observes that the husband-respondent is an able-bodied person and naturally he is not entitled to maintenance, then the learned trial Judge ought to have accepted the ratio of the Judgment in full and should have considered that in that Bombay High Court judgment the Hon'ble Court on that score directed the husband to grant maintenance to the wife. Here the learned trial Judge proceeded to some extent in consideration of the judgment but did not consider the judgment of Bombay High Court in totality.
11. In my opinion, the husband-respondent foisted the divorce suit on the wife and the husband-respondent can very well file a divorce suit to incur expenditure over there for the purpose of divorce and when the question of maintenance arises, the husband says that he is unemployed/vagabond. It is also peculiar that the husband filed a petition under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 claiming maintenance but when his petition was rejected by virtue of this impugned order then he did not challenge the order and did not move any revisional application and only played the role of respondent before this High Court. Since Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act unlike other Acts provides for maintenance of both the husband and the wife, the Court should carefully proceed in the matter for granting maintenance. The trial Court should have considered in this case that the petitioner-husband filed divorce suit incurring cost. The petitioner-husband is a Diploma Engineer and when his service was terminated, he did not challenge the said termination order. The learned Trial Judge was wrong in the calculation that if an Arts Graduate lady can do something and should not sit idle then the learned Trial Judge also should have considered that the petitioner-husband is a Diploma Engineer and he also should not sit idle being able-bodied. In this patriarchal society like ours that weaker sex is to face various troubles to find out a suitable job for maintaining herself. In such cases when considering the claim for maintenance, the Court should assess the conduct of the parties. Now here what is the conduct. In 1998 March, the wife had to find out shelter in her parental home. In the same year the husband filed a suit for divorce, there is no evidence on record that the husband tried for conciliation and incurring expenditure he can file a suit for divorce. He can regularly pay the Lawyers' fees and other expenditures and when the wife files an application for maintenance to encounter that petition takes advantage of the language of Section 24 and files a petition for maintenance. The income of the husband must be within his special knowledge and he did not make any attempt to prove either his actual income or his dismissal from service though Section 106 of the Evidence Act is very clear in this regard. The husband was to disclose his Income as it was within his special knowledge as provided in Section 106 of the Evidence Act, The husband engaged Lawyer before this High Court to defend his case but he did not challenge the order of rejection though his claim for maintenance has been rejected by the same order passed by the learned trial Judge. From this incident the conduct of the husband comes to light. Had the husband-petitioner been prejudicially affected he must have challenged the order of the learned Trial Judge, but, he did not.
12. On consideration of the facts and circumstances and consideration of the evidence on record, I therefore, set aside the order impugned passed by the learned Trial Judge in Misc. Case No. 5 of 2001 in MAT Suit No. 54 of 2000. The learned Trial Judge is directed to hear the Section 24 Application afresh filed by both the wife and the husband in the light of discussions and observation made above. Till the learned trial Judge arrives at a decision I direct that the respondent/husband to pay @ Rs. 1800/-(Rupees One thousand eight hundred only) per month as maintenance to the petitioner/ wife and will go on paying the same month by month by sending the same to the petitioner/wife through Money Order. The first such payment is to be sent by the respondent/husband within a fortnight from date and he will send the amount thereafter within seventh of each English Calendar. The respondent-husband is also directed to pay Rs. 5000/- (Rupees Five thousand) only in two equal instalments within three months from date to the petitioner/wife towards litigation costs and the respondent/husband will send this litigation costs directly to the petitioner/wife through Money Order. The Revislonal Application is thus disposed of.
13. There will be no further order as to costs.
14. Urgent xerox certified copies of this Judgment and order, if applied for, will be given to the parties as expeditiously as possible.
Later
15. Learned Advocate for the petitioner prays for a xerox plain copy of the operative portion of this order. Let a xerox plain copy of the operative portion of this order duly countersigned by the Asstt. Registrar (Court) be handed over to the learned Advocate for the petitioner.
Ruchi Arora vs State Of Punjab And Another on 27 January, 2010
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ruchi Arora vs State Of Punjab And Another on 27 January, 2010
CRM No. M 27158 of 2008 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
--
CRM No. M 27158 of 2008
Date of decision: 27.01.2010
Ruchi Arora ........ petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another .......Respondent(s)
Coram: Hon'ble Ms Justice Nirmaljit Kaur -.-
Present: Mr. Vipin Mahajan, Advocate
for the petitioner
Mr. K S Pannu, DAG, Punjab
for the respondent
Mr. Kuldip Sanwal, Advocate
for respondent No. 2 - complainant
-.-
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not?
3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest?
Nirmaljit Kaur, J.
This is a petition under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure of
Code for quashing of FIR No. 160 dated 08.08.2007 under Sections 406,
498-A of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Dhariwal, District
Gurdaspur (Annexure P1).
Facts of the case, in short, are that petitioner Ruchi Arora is an elder married sister-in-law of complainant. The petitioner was married on 17.04.1998 to Arun Arora i.e. almost four years prior to marriage of the complainant and is living at Ghaziabad at a distance of more than 500 k.ms. from Allahabad where couple lived in matrimonial house.
On 20.02.2002, complainant-Sanjogta was married to the petitioner's brother Rohit Kapoor according to Hindu rites and ceremonies.
The husband and his parents are permanent residents of Allahabad in the State of Uttar Pradesh, whereas the girl's parents are resident of Dhariwal District Gurdaspur. The complainant and Rohit Kapoor could not pull on together and differences cropped up between them.
Complainant - Sanjogta filed a complaint against all the family members of her husband as well as against the petitioner, Masar Varinder Kumar, his wife Bimla Devi and Maternal Uncle Satish Kumar. On the basis of aforesaid complaint, FIR 160 dated 08.08.2007 under Sections 406, 498-A of Indian Penal Code, registered at Police Station Dhariwal, District Gurdaspur. The only allegation against the petitioner in the FIR is that she was given a one golden ring and shawl. There are no specific allegations against the petitioner. The main thrust of the allegations in the FIR are against husband, mother-in-law and father-in-law. However, the police authorities submitted challan under Section 137 of Criminal Procedure of Code against the petitioner and declared innocent mother-in-law and father-in-law.
Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner whois an elder sister of the husband of the complainant and is living at a far away place from the matrimonial home has been falsely implicated only to put pressure on husband in family.
Learned counsel for the complainant, on the other hand, stated that Rohit Kapoor, husband of the complainant has two sisters, namely, Mrs. Ruchi and Mrs. Ritu.
He has three more "Massars' ( (mother's brother-in-law), 'Massies' (mother's sisters) and three 'Mamas'. In laws of Ruchi were living at just two houses neighbourhood Rohit Kapoor's parental house at Allahabad and she generally used to live at her parental house and was one amongst them in misappropriation and harassment. Mrs. Ritu, hissecond sister though living in the same house (her parental house) as she was left by her husband was not party to harassment and misappropriation and as such she was not named in the FIR.
Two more 'Massies' and
'Massars' are not named. Two more "Mamas, are also not named. The complainant is not blowing anything out of proportion. She only named the person who is actually involved and was party to misappropriation and harassment and none else.
From the perusal of the FIR, it is evident that the allegations are vague as no specific allegation of either demand of dowry or harassment has been levelled against the petitioner. All allegations are general in nature.
Even otherwise, it is not denied that while she was in Allahabad, the petitioner was residing with her own in-laws and not in the house of her parents. Similar allegations have also been levelled against the accused mother in law and father in law, but they have been found innocent by the Police.
This Court in a case of Divya alias Babli and others v. State of Haryana and another reported as 2006 (4) RCR (Criminal) 322, while relying on the judgement of the Apex Court rendered in the case of Kans Raj v. State of Punjab and others reported as 2000(2) RCR (Crl.) 695 held CRM No. M 27158 of 2008 4 as under:-
"22. Another judgement rendered in Shinder Pal @ Kakke's case (supra) relied by Mr. Saini, this Court while relying upon a judgement of Apex Court rendered in Kans Raj v. State of Punjab and others, AIR 2000 Supreme Court 2324 wherein their Lordships have observed that a tendency has developed for roping in all the relations in dowry cases which ultimately weakens the case of the prosecution even against the real accused.
23. My view is also fortified by the latest judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in Ramesh Kumar and others vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 2005 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 68 in which their Lordships while quashing the proceeding against sister-in-law who was staying at a different place observed that there were bald allegations to rope in as many relations of the husband.
24. Another latest judgment of Apex Court rendered in Sushil Kumar Sharma vs. Union of India and others, 2005 (3) R.C.R.(Criminal) 745 where issue of striking down Section 498-A IPC had sprouted, their Lordships observed that in such type of cases the "action" and not the "section" may be vulnerable and the Court by upholding the provisions of law may still set aside the action, order or decision and grant appropriate relief to the persons aggrieved. Their Lordships while dealing with the dowry menace, however, observed in para 17 as under:-
" The object of the provision is prevention of the dowry menace. But as he has been rightly contended by the petitioner many instances have come to light where the complaints are not bona fide and have been filed with oblique motive. In such cases acquittal of the accused does not in all cases wipe out the ignomny (ignominy?) suffered during and prior to trial. Sometimes adverse media coverage adds to the misery. The question, therefore, is what remedial measures can be taken to prevent abuse of the well-intentioned provision. Merely because the provision is constitutional and intra vires, does not give a licence to unscrupulous persons to wreck personal vendettaor unleash harassment. It may, therefore, become necessary for the legislature to find out ways how the makers of frivolous complaints or allegations can be appropriately dealt with. Till then the Courts have to take care of the situation within the existing framework. As noted above the object is to strike at the roots of dowry menace. But by misuse of the provision a new legal terrorism can be unleashed. The provision is intended to be used a shield and not an assassin's weapon. If cry of "wolf" is made too often as a prank, assistance and protection may not be available when the actual "wolf" appears. There is no question of investigating agency and Courts casually dealing with the allegations. They cannot follow any straitjacket formula in the matters relating to dowry tortures, deaths and cruelty.
It cannot be lost sight of that ultimate objective of every legal system is to arrive at truth, punish the guilty and protect the innocent. There is no scope for any pre-conceived notion or view. It is strenuously argued by the petitioner that the investigating agencies and the Courts start with the presumptions that the accused persons are guilty and that the complainant is speaking the truth. This is too wide available and generalised statement. Certain statutory presumptions are drawn which again are rebuttable. It is to be noted that the role of the investigating agencies and the Courts is that of watch dog and not of a bloodhound. It should be their effort to see that an innocent person is not made to suffer on account of unfounded, baseless and malicious allegations. It is equally indisputable that in many cases no direct evidence is available and the Courts have to act on circumstantial evidence. While dealing with such cases, the law laid down relating to circumstantial evidence has to be kept in view."
From the perusal of the FIR, no offence under Section 406 of Indian Penal Code appears to have been made out against the petitioner.
Small gift to in laws at the time of marriage does not constitute Istridhan.
With respect to offence under Section 498-A of IPC, vague allegation is
levelled against the petitioner who is married sister-in-law and is residing in her own matrimonial house. Similar allegations have been levelled against the mother-in-law and father-in-law but they have been found innocent by the police. Whereas, no specific allegation is levelled against the petitioner.
They are vague and general in nature.
Accordingly, in the view of the above, the present petition is partly allowed and the FIR and subsequent proceedings arising out of the same qua the petitioner is quashed.
(Nirmaljit Kaur)
Judge
January 27, 2010
mohan
CRM No. M 27158 of 2008 7
Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Elders left to die alone ... well all over asia, including affluent Japan !!
Dying Alone Becomes New Normal as Japan Spurns Confucius
By Kanoko Matsuyama - Feb 20, 2013 1:38 AM GMT+0400
Itoko Uchida, 82, was counting on the nephew she raised to support her in old age. He refused, forcing her to pay for a sponsor to join the 420,000-long queue of Japanese waiting for a nursing home bed.
With no relatives willing to help, the Tokyo widow had to spend 710,000 yen ($7,600) on a professional service to be her guarantor and assist with an application to a nursing home, she said. An erosion of traditional Confucian values in Japan means fewer elderly are being cared for at home by relatives -- a fact neither Uchida nor Japan’s government were fully prepared for.
Itoko Uchida, 82. sits on a chair in her home in Fujimi City, Saitama Prefecture, Japan. Photographer: Tomohiro Ohsumi/Bloomberg
An employee helps elderly during dinner at a privately run home for the elderly in Yubari City, Japan. Photographer: Robert Gilhooly/Bloomberg
Japan, with the world’s highest proportion of retirees, can’t build nursing homes fast enough. By 2025, one in three citizens will be 65 years or older from 12 percent of the population in 1990, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Developmentestimates. A lack of long-term care facilities means seniors increasingly risk living alone in ill-equipped homes or suffering abuse in the care of resentful relatives.
“The system is designed for the 1970s, when multiple generations lived together and family caregiving was thought to continue forever,” said Hiroshi Takahashi, a professor of health sciences at the International University of Health and Welfare in Otawara City. “But that’s not the reality now.”
By 2030, the number of seniors living alone, like Uchida, willincrease 54 percent to 7.2 million household units from 2010 levels, according to the National Institute of Population and Social Security Research in Tokyo. Elderly-care costs willmore than double to 19.8 trillion yen ($212 billion) a year by 2026, the health ministry estimates. That threatens to overload the world’s second-most indebted nation.
Dying Alone
From now through 2030, an estimated 470,000 seniors will die alone in Japan unless more investment is made in caring for them, Takahashi said.
“Society and the system will blow up around 2025 without a drastic change,” he said.
Japan may be a harbinger of a bigger crisis. Confucian- influenced societies from Vietnam to South Korea are grappling with the conflicting demands of modernization and traditions that venerated the elderly and obligated families to care for them, the Center for Strategic International Studies said in a report in July.
‘Massive Age Waves’
“The family is already under increasing stress from the forces of modernization,” the Washington-based center said. “Over the next few decades, massive age waves are due to engulf the region, slowing economic growth, driving up old-age dependency costs, and heaping large new burdens on governments and families alike.”
China has already sought to protect these values, passing a law last year allowing parents to sue children for failing to visit them. In South Korea, the number of suicides among people ages 65 years and older more than tripled in a decade to 4,406 in 2011, according to the latest available data from Statistics Korea. The increase was probably spurred by an economic slowdown and the erosion of traditional family support, the OECD said.
Worldwide, the proportion of people older than 60 years in populations is increasing more than three times faster than the overall growth rate. Within five years, adults 65 years and older will outnumber children younger than 5 for the first time. By 2050, there will be 2 billion people 60 years or older, from 605 million in 2000, the World Health Organization said.
By 2040, almost 40 percent of the population will be at least 60 years old in Singapore, South Korea, Hong Kong and Taiwan from 14-to-18 percent of the population in 2010, according to United Nations Population Division. The proportion will be 29 percent in China by 2040, from 12 percent in 2010.
Elderly Abuse
The growing demands of the elderly may be stoking violence toward them. In 2011, 21 seniors in Japan were murdered or died from neglect, and the number of elderly people abused by family members jumped 32 percent to 16,599 from 2005 levels, according to health ministrystatistics.
After Uchida’s husband died, her 60-year-old nephew stepped in to assist with her application and sponsor her long-term care. The help stopped when his wife intervened, said Uchida, who is 22nd in line for a bed in a nearby home.
“I stressed his marriage,” she said. “He’s also getting old and fearing he may not get help from his son, who lives far away, closer to his wife’s parents.”
Uchida paid for support from the Four-leaf Clover Association, a non-profit group that helps about 200 people in Tokyo and Kobe complete applications and attain the requisite sponsorship for a place in a nursing home.
The number of seniors seeking sponsorship for nursing homes is increasing about 10 percent a year, said Hideyuki Ogasawara, senior director at Kizunanokai, which provides a similar service.
Going Solo
In 1980, 53 percent of people older than 65 years in Japan lived with their children, according tohealth ministry data. In 2010, that proportion was down to 18 percent.
Japanese are increasingly eschewing tradition and opting to live independently, according to a 2008 government study. Thirty-six percent of respondents envisaged preferring to live with, or close to, relatives in old age, down from 70 percent in 1983.
That preference though has a downside. Almost 15 percent of Japanese “rarely” or “never” interact socially with others - - making Japan the least social of societies in the developed world, according to the OECD.
Social networks are breaking down as family members live further apart and can’t afford to socialize, said Katsuyoshi Kawai, professor of social welfare at Meiji Gakuin University and the author of the book Seniors Living Alone in Urban Cities and Social Isolation.
“We cook a lot of food for visitors, give away money for weddings, funerals and to grandchildren -- and it’s expensive,” Kawai said. “It’s hard to continue such customs” when the economy is stagnating, he said.
Gray Audit
Authorities are responding.
In metropolitan Tokyo, officials in Adachi ward are conducting a district-wide audit of people older than 70 who live alone and any shared households whose residents are all over 75. Abylaw was recently passed enabling the information to be shared with volunteer social workers, police and residents’ groups to circumvent the isolation that’s led to deaths that have gone undiscovered sometimes for months.
In 2006, Japan’s government introduced a law to protect the elderly from abuse and provide support to caregivers. It is also paying subsidies to convert hospitals into nursing homes, building residential care facilities, hiring more caregivers and urging hospitals to allow medical staff to make house calls.
Businesses, charities and local governments are also innovating to help meet the needs of the elderly. Food delivery services for seniors are expected to double in 10 years to 106 billion yen, while the market for food that doesn’t require much chewing will climb 61 percent to 158 billion yen, according to Fuji-Keizai Co., a marketing research firm in Tokyo.
Life Signs
Utilities are also chiming in with products to detect signs of life: Tokyo Gas Co. offers a serviceto alert relatives to a sudden drop in usage; KDDI Corp. sells mobile phones with pedometers to detect mobility; and Secom Co. markets a GPS system to track movement.
The initiatives are promoting more independent living.
“Our generation has lived separately from our parents, and so wives have enjoyed freedom from their in-laws,” said Toshie Kurita, 69, whose mother-in-law volunteered to move into a nursing home eight years ago.
Kurita, whose husband died two years ago, visits her mother-in-law in Chiba, west of Tokyo, every second week and says she would be happy to hire professional help if necessary.
“If money can solve the problem, that’s the best,” she said. “No one wants to beg their daughter-in-law to care for them when they’re nearing the end of their life.”
To contact the reporter on this story: Kanoko Matsuyama in Tokyo atkmatsuyama2@bloomberg.net
source
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-02-19/dying-alone-becomes-new-normal-as-japan-spurns-confucius.html
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
Creating poor horses for slaughter just because women can't deal with hot flashes.
~~~~~~~~~ From CNN page comments ~~~~~~~~~~
One of the reasons for the excess in horses is the fact pregnant mare urine is used to make Premarin, a hormone replacement for menopausal women. Premarin farms used draft horses because the meat would fetch more for the european market. Hundreds of thousands if not millions of draft horses were produced as a biproduct of making premarin. Mares are literally hooked up in pee-barns for months while their urine was collected. Their foals would be sent to slaughter and they'd have another foal just so the farmers could collect more pregnant mare urine for the big pharm to make Premarin. Sick and twisted for sure. Creating poor horses for slaughter just because women can't deal with hot flashes. Sick.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
source
http://bit.ly/UBTFue
Sunday, February 17, 2013
TV9 Sting Ops on Cheating Women Welfare Associations ! ...three such dealing madam caught on camera !
- Ladies and Gentlemen this is in Kannada and a beautiful one !
- TV9 Sting Ops on Cheating Women Welfare Associations !
- Making money in splitting husband / wife and taking a cut
- Threateining the men who were actually plants ! three such dealing madam caught on camera !
Thanks to the original posters / brothers on save indian family yahoo groups
Regards
Vinayak
========= other blogs of interest =========
- Fight back or be screwed : http://bit.ly/S7wGll
- NRI Daughter in law dead; still case against In laws quashed : (scroll down *on blog* to skip tamil notes / comments) http://bit.ly/SmJffM
- Take action against girl for filing false rape case: HC to cops : http://bit.ly/PsVcQz
- no-maintenance-u-s-125-cr-p-c-to-deserting-wife : http://bitly.com/Rg4nz7
- no maintenance to employed wife u /s 125 : http://bit.ly/Q113Ol
- Adjustment of Maintenance granted u.s 24 of HMA and Sec 125 of CrPC. Peculiar case where both the original decisions are decreed by the same judicial officer on the same date : http://bit.ly/TpwiSl
- IF you are hit with 498a ….do NOT try to conceal it while applying for governmental posts !! : http://bit.ly/RMLNEg
- Well educated software engineer arrested at chennai airport : Just on the basis of a complaint by his wife. This unfortunate thing could happen to anyone !! : So beware of Anti male laws : http://bit.ly/RoHVs0
- Woman and 19 year old paramour kill husband and mother in Law : mirror mirror on the wall who's the fairest of them all : http://wp.me/p7s7-QM
- wife advocate files 406, 498a etc against husband advocate and father in law advocate !!! One happy family I say !! http://bit.ly/Snvqty
- what IF the live - in (second female) claims rape : risk of live in before divorce ! : http://wp.me/p7s7-R5
- don't file RCR in haste and cry when interim maintenance is ordered ! : http://bit.ly/QQq6Dy
- I want to file for divorce because my wife is not interested in this marriage !!!!!! http://bit.ly/Uokcev
- more at http://vinayak.wordpress.com/
======================================
Saturday, February 16, 2013
என்னாது accused கிட்டையே complaint வாங்கி புருஷன் மேல கேசா ??? !!! புதுமையா புரட்சியா இருக்குதே !!!
அது என்ன முதியவரை திருமணம் செய்து ஒரே ஒரு பெண் மட்டும் மோசடி பண்ணுற மாதி எழுதிட்டீய .,,,,, சாதாரணமா இளைஞரை திருமண செய்யும் பெண்கள் பலரும் இதை தான் செஞ்சுக்கிட்டு இருக்காங்க ...அதான் பணம்....நகை...மோசடி !!! 498அ மோசடி, DV case etc
அது சரி ....என்னாது accused கிட்டையே complaint வாங்கி புருஷன் மேல கேசா ??? !!! புதுமையா புரட்சியா இருக்குதே !!!
செய்தியின் கடைசீ இரண்டு பாரக்களை படிக்கவும்
======= செய்தி ========
http://www.dinakaran.com/News_Detail.asp?Nid=40093
அது சரி ....என்னாது accused கிட்டையே complaint வாங்கி புருஷன் மேல கேசா ??? !!! புதுமையா புரட்சியா இருக்குதே !!!
செய்தியின் கடைசீ இரண்டு பாரக்களை படிக்கவும்
======= செய்தி ========
|
http://www.dinakaran.com/News_Detail.asp?Nid=40093
TAX EVASION PETITION FORMAT !!
At times when Husbands are falsely accused for taking dowry, at times when Justice is turned upside down, when parents are about to be arrested or have already been arrested, when honest men are defamed and when sincere husbands are dragged to trials, it becomes the bounden duty of every law abiding human being to fight back
Such a defense , a defense to uphold one's own honour and uphold justice is currently aided by filing Tax Evasion petitions
A pauper father in law, or an un scrupulous father in law who never gave dowry , nor accounted for it ever, could be easily brought to book by filing a TEP or Tax evasion petition
This post shares a time tested TEP format for the benefit of the law abiding husbands , their sisters, mothers, and in the interest of justice
SathyamEva JeyathE !!!!
Link to file
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-JZGIVy-RW5MFA1VW1JMFVfQWs/edit?usp=sharing
Short link to file
http://bit.ly/15kr2oz
This is a sincere contribution by one of the young lions who has fought and won a TEP battle !!
Should you find anything factually incorrect or wish to give any suggestions or improvements please post your comments here on the blog and it would eventually reach me
___________
regards
Vinayak
http://bit.ly/WOpIXX
Such a defense , a defense to uphold one's own honour and uphold justice is currently aided by filing Tax Evasion petitions
A pauper father in law, or an un scrupulous father in law who never gave dowry , nor accounted for it ever, could be easily brought to book by filing a TEP or Tax evasion petition
This post shares a time tested TEP format for the benefit of the law abiding husbands , their sisters, mothers, and in the interest of justice
SathyamEva JeyathE !!!!
Link to file
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B-JZGIVy-RW5MFA1VW1JMFVfQWs/edit?usp=sharing
Short link to file
http://bit.ly/15kr2oz
This is a sincere contribution by one of the young lions who has fought and won a TEP battle !!
Should you find anything factually incorrect or wish to give any suggestions or improvements please post your comments here on the blog and it would eventually reach me
___________
regards
Vinayak
http://bit.ly/WOpIXX
rape cases not misused? here is an MP+ Minister from Kerala who fought 10 years to exonerate himself.false case !!
rape cases are not misused? who said so ??
here is an MP+ Minister from Kerala who fought 10 years to exonerate himself from a false case !!
http://wp.me/p7s7-Uo
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)