Wife's Lawyer : "...........Nasrin's counsel A Sirajudeen said she was a victim of incessant cruelty by her husband, who forced her to wear modern dress and drink alcohol between October 1998 and October 1999 when they were staying in California. ........"
A Subramani, TNN | Sep 8, 2013, 06.18 AM IST
So ..... all those guys happily imagining that their dowry case is over, please wake up
things can come back to haunt you after 14 - 15 years
************************************************************
Court to rehear woman's case against ex-husband
CHENNAI: A Muslim woman, who alleged that her husband compelled her to wear 'modern dress' and drink liquor during their stay at California in the US after their marriage, earned a small victory when the Madras high court directed a trial court to hear her case again.
Justice S Vimala, passing orders on a petition filed by A S Nasrin of Coimbatore, sent the matter back to the fast-track court-II at Coimbatore saying the court had not properly appreciated the facts and circumstances of the case.
Nasrin's counsel A Sirajudeen said she was a victim of incessant cruelty by her husband, who forced her to wear modern dress and drink alcohol between October 1998 and October 1999 when they were staying in California. Later, he divorced her by pronouncing triple talaq.
Based on her complaint, the Coimbatore all-women police conducted an investigation and charged her ex-husband with dowry harassment. A judicial magistrate court found him guilty of harassment and handed him six months' rigorous imprisonment besides slapping a fine of 2,000 in 2002.
However, in 2006, the fast-track court acquitted him saying there was no documentary evidence to prove that she was compelled to wear modern dress and consume alcohol and that she herself had written a letter to her father saying she was being treated well by her husband. Pointing out that the husband had given her a credit card with a spending limit of 75 lakh, the court said her allegation that she was harassed for 50,000 dowry could not be true. Also, the case not was investigated by the inspector who registered the FIR too, it said.
Justice Vimala, rejecting these grounds, said, "There is a finding by the court that there is no documentary evidence to show the husband compelled her to take alcohol. This finding is perverse, as, by any stretch of imagination, nobody can expect any document to prove that the husband compelled the wife to take alcohol. By the very nature of allegations, it would be evident that the expectation of documentary evidence is not pragmatic."
Citing several court rulings, she also rejected the claim that the officer who registered the FIR could not investigate the case. As for the woman's letter to her father, she said the letter had been written two months into her marriage and the harassment could have started later.
*****************
FOLLOW http://twitter.com/ATMwithDick on twitter or http://vinayak.wordpress.com/ on wordpress or http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ FOR 100s of high court and supreme court cases
regards
Vinayak
Father of a lovely daughter, criminal in the eyes of a wife, son of an compassionate elderly mother, old timer who hasn't given up, Male, activist
No comments:
Post a Comment