Why should husbands suffer all the time? asks SC

please find below link

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Why-should-husbands-suffer-all-the-time-asks-SC/articleshow/45816616.cms

Wife filing false information in maintenance case can be prosecuted for perjury

please find the below link

http://tilakmarg.com/news/wife-filing-false-information-in-maintenance-case-can-be-prosecuted-for-perjury/

Husband can appoint agent to appear at family court. Need NOT appear in person for all dates. Madras HC

Please find in below link

https://vinayak.wordpress.com/2016/01/26/husband-can-appoint-agent-to-appear-at-family-court-need-not-appear-in-person-for-all-dates-madras-hc/

SHOCKING ! It happens only in India! Maintenance to wife after 50+ years of Separation Under DV act

DV act is approx 10 .. 11 years old ... But this woman left her husband 50+ years ago when there was NO DV act !! She still got money under DV act recently as awarded by a honorable HC .... And what's her proof ? She had a 50 year old photo where the bride does NOT look like her ( bride WAS a young girl 50+ years ago !! )
----------
Has anyone studied this High Court judgement where it's is reported in media that a woman has claimed maintenance under DV act some 50 years after her break up ?!!
Yes she separated from her husband approximately 50+ years ago.
Though the DV ACT came to force only 10 years ago, the honourable High Court has granted her maintenance Under domestic violence act saying the DV is continuing !!
if this is the case, if this understanding is correct, then this sets a judicial precedent and an important one
///////// Justice AV Chandrashekara, who delivered the judgment in this case on January 19, has held that there is nothing wrong in invoking a 10-year-old law in a 50-year-old incident. The judgment now sets a precedent for similar cases.//////
News >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
50 YEARS AFTER HER BREAK-UP, WOMAN DEMANDS MAINTENANCE
By Shyam Prasad S, Bangalore Mirror Bureau | Jan 28, 2016, 04.00 AM IST
Devakumari claimed to have married Ramachandrachar in 1965
Two senior citizens fought out a matrimonial case in the High Court that had all the trappings of a family saga with an intriguing mystery thrown in. A lady claiming to be the wife of a 68-year-old demanded maintenance from him 50 years after their marriage. But in a twist, the husband claimed that he was indeed married 50 years ago, but not with the woman who was before the court. However, the HC had a bigger question to answer. The woman had invoked a 10-year-old law to solve her 50-year-old dispute. But was it even applicable?
Justice AV Chandrashekara, who delivered the judgment in this case on January 19, has held that there is nothing wrong in invoking a 10-year-old law in a 50-year-old incident. The judgment now sets a precedent for similar cases.
A case was filed by 66-year-old Devakumari under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act). She claimed to have married Ramachandrachar, 68, a resident of Chickpet, Bengaluru, on February 24, 1965.
They did not have any children and Ramachandrachar allegedly neglected her while developing illegal intimacy with another woman. Devakumari started living with her father. After the death of her father in 2009, she sent a legal notice to Ramachandrachar demanding she be allowed to live in his house and be paid a maintenance of `10,000 per month.
NOT MY REAL WIFE
Ramachandrachar, on the other hand, claimed that the real Devakumari, whom he had married, was not traced and she had given up her status as his wife. He had initiated a divorce proceeding against her in 1968 itself and she had not objected to it.
In her case for maintenance, Devakumari had produced, as documentary proof, the wedding invitation and a wedding photograph before the lower court. While a trial court rejected her petition, a city civil court, before which she appealed, granted her maintenance of `5,000.
Ramachandrachar filed a revision petition before the High Court. His advocate contended that there was no 'domestic violence' and therefore no maintenance could be awarded as per the DV Act. The DV Act came into force in 2005 and the couple's marriage was 50 years ago.
Devakumari's advocate argued that she was entitled to invoke the DV Act "even if she had been thrown out before the coming into force of the said Act, since such cause of action would be a continuing one."
The HC decided on three things; one, whether there was irregularity in the lower court order. Two, if the DV Act could be invoked for maintenance by a woman who was neglected by her husband even before the law came into force. Three, whether the maintenance amount granted by lower court was correct.
PHOTO AS EVIDENCE
About the first question, the HC said, "Normally, no lady would come to court projecting herself as a married lady of some person." It also said that Devakumari was "probably 15-16 years at the time of marriage in 1965. Therefore, the possibility of the respondent having no sexual contact with a young married girl cannot be ruled out."
The lower court had ruled that the Devakumari, who was before the court, was the same one who married Ramachandrachar, based on a photograph taken at the wedding. Therefore, the first question was answered in the affirmative that the lower court had not committed any irregularity.

About the second question, the court said that the DV Act could be invoked for an act that took place even before the law came into force as there was continuous cause of action. "The act being a welfare legislation connected with the protection of rights of women, economic abuse also amounts to violence and therefore, the first appellate court has granted monetary relief," it said.

Delhi HC sets aside "Mechanical" award of maintenance to wife.

Please find in the below link

http://mynation.net/docs/52-2016/

Whether filing of false affidavit in court proceeding amounts to interference with administration of justice?

Whether filing of false affidavit in court proceeding amounts to interference with administration of justice?
Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 (for short the Act) defines criminal contempt as "the publication (whether by words, spoken or written or by signs or visible representation or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever to (1) scandalised or tend to scandalise or lower or tend to lower the authority of any court; (2) prejudice or interfere or tend to interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings or (3) interfere or tend to interfere with, or obstruct or tend to obstruct the administration of justice in any other manner. Thus, any conduct which has the tendency to interfere with the administration of justice or the due course of judicial proceedings amounts to the commission of criminal contempt. The swearing of false affidavits in judicial proceedings not only has the tendency of causing obstruction in the due course of judicial proceedings but has also the tendency to impede, obstruct and interfere with the administration of justice. The filing of false affidavits in judicial proceedings in any court of law exposes the intention of the concerned party in perverting the course of justice. The due process of law cannot be permitted to be slighted nor the majesty of law be made a mockery by such acts or conduct on the part of the parties to the litigation or even while appearing as witnesses. Anyone who makes an attempt to impede or undermine or obstruct the free flow of the unsoiled stream of justice by resorting to the filing of false evidence, commits criminal contempt of the court and renders himself liable to be dealt with in accordance with the Act. Filing of false affidavits or making false statement on oath in Courts aims at striking a blow at the Rule of Law and no court can ignore such conduct which has the tendency to shake public confidence in the judicial institutions because the very structure of an ordered life is put at stake. It would be a great public disaster if the fountain of justice is allowed to be poisoned by anyone resorting to filing of false affidavits or giving of false statements and fabricating false evidence in a court of law. The stream of justice has to be kept clear and pure and anyone soiling its purity must be dealt with sternly so that the message perculates loud and clear that no one can be permitted to undermine the dignity of the court and interfere with the due course of judicial proceedings or the administration of justice. In Chandra Shashi v. Anil Kumar Verma, [1995] 1 SCC 421, the respondent produced a false and fabricated certificate to defeat the claim of the respondent for transfer of a case. This action was found to be an act amounting to interference with the administration of justice.
Supreme Court of India
Dhananjay Sharma vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 2 May, 1995
Bench: Dr. A.S. Anand, Faizan Uddin
CASE NO. Writ Petition (crl.) 15 of 1994
Citation:AIR 1995 SC 1795

Lying on affidavit and deposing falsehood in the witness box is much not unusual in litigation, especially when it is a matrimonial one

SPECIAL CRIMINAL APPLICATION (QUASHING) NO. 7666 of 2016
=================================
SEJALBEN TEJASBHAI CHOVATIYA ….Applicant(s)
Versus
STATE OF GUJARAT….Respondent(s)

It is often found that the litigants coming before the court chose to speak blatant lies and do so with complete impudence, the court said.

Lying on affidavit and deposing falsehood in the witness box is much not unusual in litigation, especially when it is a matrimonial one. The ego clashes between the parties, the husband and wife, catalyses the otherwise usual tendency to lie.

But this recent order by Gujarat High Court is a warning to such people. The Gujarat High Court has upheld a trial court order which ordered prosecution of a lady for blatantly lying before the court to claim maintenance from the husband.

Stating that his wife had suppressed the fact that she gets permanent alimony from her former husband and lied in affidavit, an application was moved before the Family Court, Rajkot, by the husband, to take action against his wife under Section 195 read with Section 340 CrPC for committing an offence under Sections 191, 192 and 193 of the Indian Penal Code, which was allowed by the trial court.

The wife approached the high court seeking quashing of this order. Justice MS Sonia Gokani observed that the only aspect that needs to be considered is as to whether it is expedient the interest of justice that such prosecution would be necessary. Referring to Iqbal Singh Marwah and another vs. Meenakshi Marwah and another, the court said that this expediency is not weighing the magnitude of the injury suffered by the person affected by it but having regard to the effect or impact that the offence would have on administration of justice and considering the factual scenario. The court observed that so far as its impact on the administration of justice, in the instant case, is concerned, it has no reason to interfere as often it is found that the litigants coming before the court chose to speak blatant lies and do so with complete impudence. “Laws, which are otherwise in favour of the distressed wife when are sought to be misused by declaring completely incorrect facts and also by suppressing the material aspect, the trial court at the time of considering the case found that the impact on the administration of justice would make it expedient for it to direct the prosecution,” the court said dismissing the wife’s petition.

When court can recall its own order?

Supreme Court in Budhia Swain v. Gopinath Deb, (1999) 4 SCC 396, held that what is a power to recall? Inherent power to recall its own order vesting in tribunals or courts and set aside an orders:- 
(i) obtained by fraud practised upon the court, 
(ii) when the court is misled by a party, or 
(iii) when the court itself commits a mistake which prejudices a party.

For more information see in the link below.

http://www.lawweb.in/2016/08/when-court-can-recall-its-own-order.html

Concept of "Zero-FIR"

Concept of "Zero-FIR"

There is a concept of “Zero-FIR”. It means that a FIR can be filed in any police station (i.e.: irrespective of place of incident/jurisdiction) and the same can be later transferred to the appropriate Police Station. However policemen usually deny knowing about “Zero FIR” and direct the complainant to concerned Police Station.”

Concept of Zero FIR: Explained

Empowers police to proceed with a case where FIR has been filed within the territorial jurisdiction of a particular Police Station where the incident occurred.

So what about FIRs which fall outside the territorial jurisdiction of a particular Police Station?

Looking at the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code, if FIR is not filed within territorial jurisdiction of a concerned Police Station, the Station House-in-Charge (SHO) of that particular Police Station cannot proceed with further investigation of the case and the FIR should be filed with a Police Station which has territorial jurisdiction to act over the case. But practically it is not always possible to adhere to the exact wordings of Criminal Procedure Code
For example: If a person visits Police Station informing the police that his friend was murdered on the road (cognizable offence). Incidences like this require immediate action on part of the police (like collecting samples, getting information from eye witnesses, etc.); in such a situation police cannot excuse themselves saying that the case does not fall within their jurisdiction. This will hamper the very objective of the police force that is ‘to maintain law and order’. But at the same time it is mandatory to adhere to statutory regulations, so after investigation is over, if the Investigating Officer arrives at the conclusion that the cause of action for lodging the FIR has not arisen within his territorial jurisdiction, then he is required to submit a report and forward the case to the Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence and must also submit all the materials including copy of FIR, collected sample of evidence and detailed report of the inquiry done till the date the case is transferred to the concerned Police Station.

In the case of Satvinder Kaur vs. State (Government of NCT Delhi), The complainant had appealed in the Supreme Court against the order of the High Court, where the High Court had quashed the FIR filed at Delhi Police Station by the complainant. The Supreme Court held that, Police can investigate the case, which does not fall under their jurisdiction.
Let us look at another case. In the case of Bimla Rawal and Ors. v State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr, FIR was lodged in Delhi, despite the fact that all incidents occurred in Mumbai. Writ Petition was filed in Supreme Court regarding the mala fide intentions of police succumbing under the pressure of opposite party. Supreme Court quashed the FIR filed at Delhi and ordered to file a fresh FIR in Mumbai. In this case the police misused the power of filing a Zero FIR at the behest of the opposite party.

Can a party take undue advantage of filing a Zero FIR?
Yes a party can exploit the provisions of Zero FIR. The main reason that can lead to undue advantage in case of Zero FIR is that outcome of criminal case mainly depends on the preliminary investigation carried out at the beginning of the case. Transferring the FIR at the later stage may adversely affect the case as the opposite party may file an FIR at the Police Station of its choice and by getting the investigation report made in their favor.
Other drawback of filing a Zero FIR is that Police Station not having territorial jurisdiction over the case, may lodge the FIR for satisfaction of the complainant, but may immediately transfer the FIR to the concerned Police Station without making any preliminary inquiry in the case.

What happens where there are multiple territorial jurisdictions?
Example: A woman is mentally harassed for dowry in Delhi (place where she stayed with her husband and in-laws) and is also physically tortured at Mumbai (where her parents stay) where she finally succumbed to death.
This is an instance of continuing offence. There is provision under Criminal Procedure Code which expands the horizon of territorial jurisdiction where FIR can be lodged at both the places i.e. either at Mumbai or at Delhi. The concept of continuing offence is different from that of Zero FIR because in the case of continuing offence, there is no need of transferring the FIR from one place to another place as the alleged offence took place at both the places unlike in the case of Zero FIR

Harvard study--Women commit 70% of domestic violence

http://newscastmedia.com/domestic-violence.htm

HOW TO WIN INTERIM MAINTENANCE CASE

5 Steps To Win The Interim Maintenance

Interim maintenance can fight with different ways it is mostly depend upon the type of party, type of lawyer and other factor and it change case to case basis, but as per my observation few are the useful point to fight the Interim Maintenance.5 steps to win the interim maintenance

1. Capable of working ( Add the info past and present job details )
2. Well Qualified (add the info of her education )
3. Prima Face Case
4. Approach the Court with Unclean Hand
5. Deserted to Husband without sufficient cause

Following are the Ground for the Argument
1. Before passing interim Maintenance necessary expenses which must be deducted like ( PF, Income tax, Insurance, Home EMI, any kind of Loan )
2. Need to explain Father and mother is also your responsibility
3. Prima Face case : Explain to court from so and so date we are not living as husband and wife and not sharing the same house
4. Judgment should be passed from date of order not the date of filling the application
5. Show some of incident that Wife lies to court.
6. How she is able to survive in society from so and so date without any maintenance
7. Burden of Proof lies with applicant8. Child is joint responsibility

What are the proof need to attached with the Interim WS
1. Her Education background and certificate
2. Her Job details like ( Bank passbook, IT return, Salary slip )
3. Her other investment detail ( Mutual fund, Insurance, property etc )
4. Few Citation which is matching your case ( Citation should be from same state for more impact )
5. Expanse report from your side
6. Your Medical certificate and your father and mother medical certificate along with expanse

Following are the Precaution while fighting for Interim Maintenance
1. Expose of Evidence : Do not expose your important evidence to other party at this stage

2. Never do Oral Argument : All the arguments should be Written argument , supported with your oral argument

3. Do Not Delay the Case: Do not delay the interim maintenance case for long time.

4. Proper Ground for Fight: Do not fight Interim on wrong ground, it is mainly depended upon both spouse salary and leaving standard in society.

5. File the production of document application

6. If she filed your wrong salary and with huge amount, it is good idea to shared your salary slip with court explaining the true information.

7. Do the proper argument for Cross of opposite party before passing the order

8. Never disclose your strategy to opposite party.

Important point to understand.
1. Before passing any order, Court has to make sure Domestic violence has happen to Applicant
2. Before passing any order, court should consider any Incident report or DIR report
3. Never filed the RCR, most of the time it will backfire.

Credit : Sachin Pani

K. K. Nambiar v. Union of India and another, AIR 1970 SC 652, held as follows:

"The appellant filed an affidavit in support of the petition. Neither the petition nor the affidavit was verified. The affidavits which were filed in answer to the appellant's petition were also not verified. The reasons for verification of affidavits are to enable the Court to find out which facts can be said to be proved on the affidavit evidence of rival parties. Allegations may be true to knowledge or allegations may be true to information received from persons or allegations may be based on records. The importance of verification is to test the genuineness and authenticity of allegations and also to make the deponent responsible for allegations. In essence verification is required to enable the Court to find out as to whether it will be safe to act on such affidavit evidence. In the present case, the affidavits of all the parties suffer from the mischief of lack of proper verification with the result that the affidavits should not be admissible in evidence."

Wise people with use this judgement of Hon. Apex Court, to demolish the DV case based on meagre affidavit.