BREAKING NEWS - FLASH

Download Free English Version Book :- A Warning for INDIAN Bachelors
F A L T

We create awareness among citizens; About Corruption,injustice,harassment, Gender biased laws,elder abuse and human rights.

Give me liberty, or give me death

हिन्दी संस्करण किताब डाउनलोड करें: - भारतीय स्नातक के लिए एक चेतावनी
F A L T

JUST MARRIED Have you applied for BAIL Click for more info...
F A L T

Some Interesting Stats On Arrests Of Women In 1930, the British govt arrested 17,000 women for their involvement in the Dandi Yatra (Salt March). During 1937 to 1947 (10 Years), they arrested 5,000 women involved in the freedom struggle. From 2004 to 2006, the govt of India arrested 90,000 women of all ages under 498A. On the average, 27,000 women per year are being arrested under this flawed law. These are stats from the NCRB.


...H E L P L I N E MEN in Distress Call (0)8882 498 498 Managed by SIF
Showing posts with label DP 3. Show all posts
Showing posts with label DP 3. Show all posts

Saturday, 16 March 2013

Save The Institution of Marriage Guidelines


Save The Institution of Marriage Guidelines

Delhi High Court

Chander Bhan And Anr vs State on 4 August, 2008



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Bail Application No. 1627/2008


04.08.2008


Judgment delivered on: 04.8.2008


Chander Bhan and Anr. ...... Petitioners Through: Mr. Rajesh Khanna Adv.


versus


State ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Pawan Sharma APP


CORAM:


HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH GAMBHIR

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? yes

2. To be referred to Reporter or not? yes

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? yes KAILASH GAMBHIR, J. (Oral)


By way of the present petition the petitioners who are parents- in-law of the complainant seek grant of anticipatory bail. Mr. Sharma counsel for the State submits that allegations are serious in nature against the petitioners, therefore, the petitioners do not deserve grant of anticipatory bail. Complainant is present in the court. She states that there is no possibility of her going back to the matrimonial home. However, the complainant is not averse to the matter being sent before the mediation cell. Let the matter be sent to the Mediation Cell, Rohini Court, Delhi for exploring the possibility of amicable settlement between the parties. Let the parties appear before the Mediation Cell, Rohini Court, Delhi on 11.8.2008 at 4.00 P.M.

List the matter before the court on 23.9.2008. Till then the petitioners shall not be arrested. Before parting with this case, I deem it expedient and in the larger interest of saving matrimony of the couples and to restore peace between the two hostile families of husband and wife who once must have celebrated the marriage of couple with great zeal, fervor and enthusiasm but when faced with many facets and stark realities of life entangled themselves to fight a long drawn legal battle instead of building confidence, trust, understanding, mutual respect for each other and their respective families. The offence of cruelty by husband or relatives of husband (Section 498-A) was added in 1986 to curb the vise of subjecting women to coerce them or their relatives to meet unlawful demands for dowry. Since its enactment, this provision has been subjected to systematic and sustained attack. It has been called unfair and responsible for the victimisation of husbands by their wives and her relatives. No doubt there may be many deserving cases where women are being subjected to mental and physical cruelty at the hands of the avaricious in-laws. But such cases have to be distinguished from other cases where merely due to trivial fights and ego clashes the matrimony is facing disaster. What is not comprehended by young minds while invoking the provisions of the likes of Section 498-A and 406 of IPC is that these provisions to a large extent have done incalculable harm in breaking matrimony of the couples. Despite the western culture influencing the young minds of our country, still it has been seen that Indian families value their own age old traditions and culture, where, mutual respect, character and morals are still kept at a very high pedestal.

It has been noticed in diverse cases, where the brides and their family members in litigation find the doors of conciliation shut from the side of groom and his family members only on account of there having suffered the wrath of Police harassment first at the stage when matter is pending before crime against women cell and thereafter at the time of seeking grant of anticipatory or regular bail and then the ordeal of long drawn trial. Daily, matters come before this court seeking bail and for quashing of FIR?s registered under Sections 498A/406 of the IPC. This court is of the view that it is essential to lay down some broad guidelines and to give directions in such matters in order to salvage and save the institution of marriage and matrimonial homes of the couples.

Guidelines:

1. Social workers/NGO

There is no iota of doubt that most of the complaints are filed in the heat of the moment over trifling fights and ego clashes. It is also a matter of common knowledge that in their tussle and ongoing hostility the hapless children are the worst victims. Before a wife moves to file a complaint with the Women Cell, a lot of persuasion and conciliation is required. (a) The Delhi Legal Service Authority, National Commission for Women, NGO?s and social worker?s working for upliftment of women should set up a desk in crime against women cell to provide them with conciliation services, so that before the State machinery is set in motion, the matter is amicably settled at that very stage. But, if ultimately even after efforts put by the social workers reconciliation seems not possible then the matter should be undertaken by the police officials of Crime against Women cell and there also, serious efforts should be made to settle the matter amicably.


2. Police Authorities:

(a) Pursuant to directions given by the Apex Court, the Commissioner of Police, Delhi vide Standing Order No. 330/2007 had already issued guidelines for arrest in the dowry cases registered under Sections 498-A/406 IPC and the said guidelines should be followed by the Delhi Police strictly and scrupulously. (i) No case under Section 498-A/406 IPC should be registered without the prior approval of DCP/Addl. DCP.


(ii) Arrest of main accused should be made only after thorough investigation has been conducted and with the prior approval of the ACP/DCP. (iii) Arrest of the collateral accused such as father-in-law, mother-in-law, brother-in-law or sister-in-law etc should only be made after prior approval of DCP on file.


(b) Police should also depute a well trained and a well behaved staff in all the crime against women cells especially the lady officers, all well equipped with the abilities of perseverance, persuasion, patience and forbearance. (c) FIR in such cases should not be registered in a routine manner. (d) The endeavor of the Police should be to scrutinize complaints very carefully and then register FIR.


(e) The FIR should be registered only against those persons against whom there are strong allegations of causing any kind of physical or mental cruelty as well as breach of trust.


(f) All possible efforts should be made, before recommending registration of any FIR, for reconciliation and in case it is found that there is no possibility of settlement, then necessary steps in the first instance be taken to ensure return of stridhan and dowry articles etc. by the accused party to the complainant.


3. Lawyers:

Lawyers also have a great responsibility in this regard. (a) While drafting pleadings/complaints, the lawyers should not unnecessarily suggest incorporation of wild allegations, or in character assassination of any of the parties or their family members whatever the case may be. (b) Lawyers are also to endeavour to bring about amicable settlement between the parties as they are expected to discharge sacred duty as social engineers in such cases instead of making them target for monetary considerations by multiplying their cases.

4. Courts:

Subordinate courts, be it trying civil or criminal cases concerning bail, maintenance, custody, divorce or other related matters shall in the first instance, in every case where it is possible so to do consistently with the nature and circumstances of the case, to make every endeavour to bring about reconciliation between the parties.


a) The first endeavor should be for possible reunion and restitution of the parties and as a last endeavor to bring about peaceful separation. b) If possible extra time should be devoted to such matters to restore peace in the lives of rival parties be it by re-uniting them or even in case of their parting ways.


c) Conciliatory proceedings by the court should preferably be held in camera to avoid embarrassment.


d) Wherever, the courts are overburdened with the work, necessary assistance of Mediation and Conciliation cells should be sought. Apart from above directions it would not be out of place to ask parties also to themselves adopt a conciliatory approach without intervention of any outside agency and unless there are very compelling reasons, steps for launching prosecution against any spouse or his/her in-laws be not initiated just in a huff, anger, desperation or frustration. 


DASTI.

KAILASH GAMBHIR, J

August 04, 2008

Bail Application No. 1627/2008

Sunday, 3 March 2013

Statistics of a Fatherless America


Statistics of a Fatherless


Source:- http://www.photius.com/feminocracy/facts_on_fatherless_kids.html

Sexual activity. In a study of 700 adolescents, researchers found that "compared to families with two natural parents living in the home, adolescents from single-parent families have been found to engage in greater and earlier sexual activity."Source: Carol W. Metzler, et al. "The Social Context for Risky Sexual Behavior Among Adolescents," Journal of Behavioral Medicine 17 (1994).


A myriad of maladies. Fatherless children are at a dramatically greater risk of drug and alcohol abuse, mental illness, suicide, poor educational performance, teen pregnancy, and criminality.
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics, Survey on Child Health, Washington, DC, 1993.
Drinking problems. Teenagers living in single-parent households are more likely to abuse alcohol and at an earlier age compared to children reared in two-parent households
Source: Terry E. Duncan, Susan C. Duncan and Hyman Hops, "The Effects of Family Cohesiveness and Peer Encouragement on the Development of Adolescent Alcohol Use: A Cohort-Sequential Approach to the Analysis of Longitudinal Data," Journal of Studies on Alcohol 55 (1994).
Drug Use: "...the absence of the father in the home affects significantly the behavior of adolescents and results in the greater use of alcohol and marijuana."
Source: Deane Scott Berman, "Risk Factors Leading to Adolescent Substance Abuse," Adolescence 30 (1995)
Sexual abuse. A study of 156 victims of child sexual abuse found that the majority of the children came from disrupted or single-parent homes; only 31 percent of the children lived with both biological parents. Although stepfamilies make up only about 10 percent of all families, 27 percent of the abused children lived with either a stepfather or the mother's boyfriend.
Source: Beverly Gomes-Schwartz, Jonathan Horowitz, and Albert P. Cardarelli, "Child Sexual Abuse Victims and Their Treatment," U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
Child Abuse. Researchers in Michigan determined that "49 percent of all child abuse cases are committed by single mothers."
Source: Joan Ditson and Sharon Shay, "A Study of Child Abuse in Lansing, Michigan," Child Abuse and Neglect, 8 (1984).
Deadly predictions. A family structure index -- a composite index based on the annual rate of children involved in divorce and the percentage of families with children present that are female-headed -- is a strong predictor of suicide among young adult and adolescent white males.
Source: Patricia L. McCall and Kenneth C. Land, "Trends in White Male Adolescent, Young-Adult and Elderly Suicide: Are There Common Underlying Structural Factors?" Social Science Research 23, 1994.
High risk. Fatherless children are at dramatically greater risk of suicide.
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics, Survey on Child Health,Washington, DC, 1993.
Suicidal Tendencies. In a study of 146 adolescent friends of 26 adolescent suicide victims, teens living in single-parent families are not only more likely to commit suicide but also more likely to suffer from psychological disorders, when compared to teens living in intact families.
Source: David A. Brent, et al. "Post-traumatic Stress Disorder in Peers of Adolescent Suicide Victims: Predisposing Factors and Phenomenology." Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 34, 1995.
Confused identities. Boys who grow up in father-absent homes are more likely that those in father-present homes to have trouble establishing appropriate sex roles and gender identity.
Source: P.L. Adams, J.R. Milner, and N.A. Schrepf, Fatherless Children, New York, Wiley Press, 1984.
Psychiatric Problems. In 1988, a study of preschool children admitted to New Orleans hospitals as psychiatric patients over a 34-month period found that nearly 80 percent came from fatherless homes.
Source: Jack Block, et al. "Parental Functioning and the Home Environment in Families of Divorce," Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 27 (1988)
Emotional distress. Children living with a never-married mother are more likely to have been treated for emotional problems.
Source: L. Remez, "Children Who Don't Live with Both Parents Face Behavioral Problems," Family Planning Perspectives(January/February 1992).
Uncooperative kids. Children reared by a divorced or never-married mother are less cooperative and score lower on tests of intelligence than children reared in intact families. Statistical analysis of the behavior and intelligence of these children revealed "significant detrimental effects" of living in a female-headed household. Growing up in a female-headed household remained a statistical predictor of behavior problems even after adjusting for differences in family income.
Source: Greg L. Duncan, Jeanne Brooks-Gunn and Pamela Kato Klebanov, "Economic Deprivation and Early Childhood Development," Child Development 65 (1994).
Unstable families, unstable lives. Compared to peers in two-parent homes, black children in single-parent households are more likely to engage in troublesome behavior, and perform poorly in school.
Source: Tom Luster and Hariette Pipes McAdoo, "Factors Related to the Achievement and Adjustment of Young African-American Children." Child Development 65 (1994): 1080-1094
Beyond class lines. Even controlling for variations across groups in parent education, race and other child and family factors, 18- to 22-year-olds from disrupted families were twice as likely to have poor relationships with their mothers and fathers, to show high levels of emotional distress or problem behavior, [and] to have received psychological help.
Source: Nicholas Zill, Donna Morrison, and Mary Jo Coiro, "Long Term Effects of Parental Divorce on Parent-Child Relationships, Adjustment and Achievement in Young Adulthood." Journal of Family Psychology 7 (1993).
Fatherly influence. Children with fathers at home tend to do better in school, are less prone to depression and are more successful in relationships. Children from one-parent families achieve less and get into trouble more than children from two parent families.
Source: One Parent Families and Their Children: The School's Most Significant Minority, conducted by The Consortium for the Study of School Needs of Children from One Parent Families, co sponsored by the National Association of Elementary School Principals and the Institute for Development of Educational Activities, a division of the Charles F. Kettering Foundation, Arlington, VA., 1980
Divorce disorders. Children whose parents separate are significantly more likely to engage in early sexual activity, abuse drugs, and experience conduct and mood disorders. This effect is especially strong for children whose parents separated when they were five years old or younger.
Source: David M. Fergusson, John Horwood and Michael T. Lynsky, "Parental Separation, Adolescent Psychopathology, and Problem Behaviors," Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry 33 (1944).
Troubled marriages, troubled kids. Compared to peers living with both biological parents, sons and daughters of divorced or separated parents exhibited significantly more conduct problems. Daughters of divorced or separated mothers evidenced significantly higher rates of internalizing problems, such as anxiety or depression.
Source: Denise B. Kandel, Emily Rosenbaum and Kevin Chen, "Impact of Maternal Drug Use and Life Experiences on Preadolescent Children Born to Teenage Mothers," Journal of Marriage and the Family56 (1994).
Hungry for love. "Father hunger" often afflicts boys age one and two whose fathers are suddenly and permanently absent. Sleep disturbances, such as trouble falling asleep, nightmares, and night terrors frequently begin within one to three months after the father leaves home.
Source: Alfred A. Messer, "Boys Father Hunger: The Missing Father Syndrome," Medical Aspects of Human Sexuality,January 1989.
Disturbing news: Children of never-married mothers are more than twice as likely to have been treated for an emotional or behavioral problem.
Source: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, National Center for Health Statistics, National Health Interview Survey, Hyattsille, MD, 1988
Poor and in trouble: A 1988 Department of Health and Human Services study found that at every income level except the very highest (over $50,000 a year), children living with never-married mothers were more likely than their counterparts in two-parent families to have been expelled or suspended from school, to display emotional problems, and to engage in antisocial behavior.
Source: James Q. Wilson, "In Loco Parentis: Helping Children When Families Fail Them," The Brookings Review, Fall 1993.
Fatherless aggression: In a longitudinal study of 1,197 fourth-grade students, researchers observed "greater levels of aggression in boys from mother-only households than from boys in mother-father households."
Source: N. Vaden-Kierman, N. Ialongo, J. Pearson, and S. Kellam, "Household Family Structure and Children's Aggressive Behavior: A Longitudinal Study of Urban Elementary School Children," Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology 23, no. 5 (1995).
Act now, pay later: "Children from mother-only families have less of an ability to delay gratification and poorer impulse control (that is, control over anger and sexual gratification.) These children also have a weaker sense of conscience or sense of right and wrong."
Source: E.M. Hetherington and B. Martin, "Family Interaction" in H.C. Quay and J.S. Werry (eds.), Psychopathological Disorders of Childhood. (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1979)
Crazy victims: Eighty percent of adolescents in psychiatric hospitals come from broken homes.
Source: J.B. Elshtain, "Family Matters...", Christian Century, July 1993.
Duh to dead: "The economic consequences of a [father's] absence are often accompanied by psychological consequences, which include higher-than-average levels of youth suicide, low intellectual and education performance, and higher-than-average rates of mental illness, violence and drug use."
Source: William Galston, Elaine Kamarck. Progressive Policy Institute. 1993
Expelled: Nationally, 15.3 percent of children living with a never-married mother and 10.7 percent of children living with a divorced mother have been expelled or suspended from school, compared to only 4.4 percent of children living with both biological parents.
Source: Debra Dawson, "Family Structure...", Journal of Marriage and Family, No. 53. 1991.
Violent rejection: Kids who exhibited violent behavior at school were 11 times as likely not to live with their fathers and six times as likely to have parents who were not married. Boys from families with absent fathers are at higher risk for violent behavior than boys from intact families.
Source: J.L. Sheline (et al.), "Risk Factors...", American Journal of Public Health, No. 84. 1994.
That crowd: Children without fathers or with stepfathers were less likely to have friends who think it's important to behave properly in school. They also exhibit more problems with behavior and in achieving goals.
Source: Nicholas Zill, C. W. Nord, "Running in Place," Child Trends, Inc. 1994.
Likeliest to succeed: Kids who live with both biological parents at age 14 are significantly more likely to graduate from high school than those kids who live with a single parent, a parent and step-parent, or neither parent.
Source: G.D. Sandefur (et al.), "The Effects of Parental Marital Status...", Social Forces, September 1992.
Worse to bad: Children in single-parent families tend to score lower on standardized tests and to receive lower grades in school. Children in single-parent families are nearly twice as likely to drop out of school as children from two-parent families.
Source: J.B. Stedman (et al.), "Dropping Out," Congressional Research Service Report No 88-417. 1988.
College odds: Children from disrupted families are 20 percent more unlikely to attend college than kids from intact, two-parent families.
Source: J. Wallerstein, Family Law Quarterly, 20. (Summer 1986)
On their own: Kids living in single-parent homes or in step-families report lower educational expectations on the part of their parents, less parental monitoring of school work, and less overall social supervision than children from intact families.
Source: N.M. Astore and S. McLanahan, Americican Sociological Review, No. 56 (1991)
Double-risk: Fatherless children -- kids living in homes without a stepfather or without contact with their biological father -- are twice as likely to drop out of school.
Source: U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services, Survey on Child Health. (1993)
Repeat, repeat: Nationally, 29.7 percent of children living with a never-married mother and 21.5 percent of children living with a divorced mother have repeated at least one grade in school, compared to 11.6 percent of children living with both biological parents.
Source: Debra Dawson, "Family Structure and Children's Well-Being," Journals of Marriage and Family, No. 53. (1991).
Underpaid high achievers: Children from low-income, two-parent families outperform students from high-income, single-parent homes. Almost twice as many high achievers come from two-parent homes as one-parent homes.
Source: "One-Parent Families and Their Children;" Charles F. Kettering Foundation (1990).
Dadless and dumb: At least one-third of children experiencing a parental separation "demonstrated a significant decline in academic performance" persisting at least three years.
Source: L.M.C. Bisnairs (et al.), American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, no. 60 (1990)
Son of Solo: According to a recent study of young, non-custodial fathers who are behind on child support payments, less than half of these men were living with their own father at age 14.
Slip-sliding: Among black children between the ages of 6 to 9 years old, black children in mother-only households scored significantly lower on tests of intellectual ability, than black children living with two parents.
Source: Luster and McAdoo, Child Development 65. 1994.
Dadless dropouts: After taking into account race, socio-economic status, sex, age and ability, high school students from single-parent households were 1.7 times more likely to drop out than were their corresponding counterparts living with both biological parents.
Source: Ralph McNeal, Sociology of Education 88. 1995.
Takes two: Families in which both the child's biological or adoptive parents are present in the household show significantly higher levels of parental involvement in the child's school activities than do mother-only families or step-families.
Source: Zill and Nord, "Running in Place." Child Trends. 1994
Con garden: Forty-three percent of prison inmates grew up in a single-parent household -- 39 percent with their mothers, 4 percent with their fathers -- and an additional 14 percent lived in households without either biological parent. Another 14 percent had spent at last part of their childhood in a foster home, agency or other juvenile institution.
Source: US Bureau of Justice Statistics, Survey of State Prison Inmates. 1991
Criminal moms, criminal kids: The children of single teenage mothers are more at risk for later criminal behavior. In the case of a teenage mother, the absence of a father also increases the risk of harshness from the mother.
Source: M. Mourash, L. Rucker, Crime and Delinquency 35. 1989.
Rearing rapists: Seventy-two percent of adolescent murderers grew up without fathers. Sixty percent of America's rapists grew up the same way.
Source: D. Cornell (et al.), Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 5. 1987. And N. Davidson, "Life Without Father," Policy Review. 1990.
Crime and poverty: The proportion of single-parent households in a community predicts its rate of violent crime and burglary, but the community's poverty level does not.
Source: D.A. Smith and G.R. Jarjoura, "Social Structure and Criminal Victimization," Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 25. 1988.
Marriage matters: Only 13 percent of juvenile delinquents come from families in which the biological mother and father are married to each other. By contract, 33 percent have parents who are either divorced or separated and 44 percent have parents who were never married.
Source: Wisconsin Dept. of Health and Social Services, April 1994.
No good time: Compared to boys from intact, two-parent families, teenage boys from disrupted families are not only more likely to be incarcerated for delinquent offenses, but also to manifest worse conduct while incarcerated.
Source: M Eileen Matlock et al., "Family Correlates of Social Skills..." Adolescence 29. 1994.
Count 'em: Seventy percent of juveniles in state reform institutions grew up in single- or no-parent situations.
Source: Alan Beck et al., Survey of Youth in Custody, 1987, US Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1988.
The Main Thing: The relationship between family structure and crime is so strong that controlling for family configuration erases the relationship between race and crime and between low income and crime. This conclusion shows up time and again in the literature.
Source: E. Kamarck, William Galston, Putting Children First, Progressive Policy Inst. 1990
Examples: Teenage fathers are more likely than their childless peers to commit and be convicted of illegal activity, and their offenses are of a more serious nature.
Source: M.A. Pirog-Good, "Teen Father and the Child Support System," in Paternity Establishment, Institute for research on Poverty, Univ. of Wisconsin. 1992.
The 'hood The likelihood that a young male will engage in criminal activity doubles if he is raised without a father and triples if he lives in a neighborhood with a high concentration of single-parent families.
Source: A. Anne Hill, June O'Neill, "Underclass Behaviors in the United States," CUNY, Baruch College. 1993
Bringing the war back home The odds that a boy born in America in 1974 will be murdered are higher than the odds that a serviceman in World War II would be killed in combat.
Source: US Sen. Phil Gramm, 1995
Get ahead at home and at work: Fathers who cared for their children intellectual development and their adolescent's social development were more like to advance in their careers, compared to men who weren't involved in such activities.
Source: J. Snarey, How Fathers Care for the Next Generation.Harvard Univ. Press.
Diaper dads: In 1991, about 20 percent of preschool children were cared for by their fathers -- both married and single. In 1988, the number was 15 percent.
Source: M. O'Connell, "Where's Papa? Father's Role in Child Care," Population Reference Bureau. 1993.
Without leave: Sixty-three percent of 1500 CEOs and human resource directors said it was not reasonable for a father to take a leave after the birth of a child.
Source: J.H. Pleck, "Family Supportive Employer Policies," Center for research in Women. 1991.
Get a job: The number of men who complain that work conflicts with their family responsibilities rose from 12 percent in 1977 to 72 percent in 1989. Meanwhile, 74 percent of men prefer a "daddy track" job to a "fast track" job.
Source: James Levine, The Fatherhood Project.
Long-distance dads: Twenty-six percent of absent fathers live in a different state than their children.
Source: US Bureau of the Census, Statistical Brief . 1991.
Cool Dad of the Week: Among fathers who maintain contact with their children after a divorce, the pattern of the relationship between father-and-child changes. They begin to behave more like relatives than like parents. Instead of helping with homework, nonresident dads are more likely to take the kids shopping, to the movies, or out to dinner. Instead of providing steady advice and guidance, divorced fathers become "treat dads."
Source: F. Furstenberg, A. Cherlin, Divided Families . Harvard Univ. Press. 1991.
Older's not wiser: While 57 percent of unwed dads with kids no older than two visit their children more than once a week, by the time the kid's seven and a half, only 23 percent are in frequent contact with their children.
Source: R. Lerman and Theodora Ooms, Young Unwed Fathers . 1993.
Ten years after: Ten years after the breakup of a marriage, more than two-thirds of kids report not having seen their father for a year.
Source: National Commission on Children, Speaking of Kids. 1991.
No such address: More than half the kids who don't live with their father have never been in their father's house.
Source: F. Furstenberg, A. Cherlin, Divided Families. Harvard Univ. Press. 1991.
Dadless years: About 40 percent of the kids living in fatherless homes haven't seen their dads in a year or more. Of the rest, only one in five sleeps even one night a month at the father's home. And only one in six sees their father once or more per week.
Source: F. Furstenberg, A. Cherlin, Divided Families. Harvard Univ. Press. 1991.
Measuring up? According to a 1992 Gallup poll, more than 50 percent of all adults agreed that fathers today spend less time with their kids than their fathers did with them.
Source: Gallup national random sample conducted for the National Center for Fathering, April 1992.
Father unknown. Of kids living in single-mom households, 35 percent never see their fathers, and another 24 percent see their fathers less than once a month.
Source: J.A. Selzer, "Children's Contact with Absent Parents," Journal of Marriage and the Family, 50 (1988).
Missed contact: In a study of 304 young adults, those whose parents divorced after they left home had significantly less contact with their fathers than adult children who parents remained married. Weekly contact with their children dropped from 78 percent for still-married fathers to 44 percent for divorced fathers.
Source: William Aquilino, "Later Life Parental Divorce and Widowhood," Journal of Marriage and the Family 56. 1994.
Commercial breaks: The amount of time a father spends with his child -- one-on-one -- averages less than 10 minutes a day.
Source: J. P. Robinson, et al., "The Rhythm of Everyday Life." Westview Press. 1988
High risk: Overall, more than 75 percent of American children are at risk because of paternal deprivation. Even in two-parent homes, fewer than 25 percent of young boys and girls experience an average of at least one hour a day of relatively individualized contact with their fathers.
Source: Henry Biller, "The Father Factor..." a paper based on presentations during meetings with William Galston, Deputy Director, Domestic Policy, Clinton White House, December 1993 and April 1994.
Knock, knock: Of children age 5 to 14, 1.6 million return home to houses where there is no adult present.
Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census, "Who's Minding the Kids?" Statistical Brief. April 1994.
Who said talk's cheap? Almost 20 percent of sixth- through twelfth-graders have not had a good conversation lasting for at least 10 minutes with at least one of their parents in more than a month.
Source: Peter Benson, "The Troubled Journey." Search Institute. 1993.
Justified guilt. A 1990 L.A. Times poll found that 57 percent of all fathers and 55 percent of all mothers feel guilty about not spending enough time with their children.
Source: Lynn Smith and Bob Sipchen, "Two Career Family Dilemma," Los Angeles Times, Aug. 12, 1990.
Who are you, mister? In 1965, parents on average spent approximately 30 hours a week with their kids. By 1985, the amount of time had fallen to 17 hours.
Source: William Mattox, "The Parent Trap." Policy Review. Winter, 1991.
Waiting Works: Only eight percent of those who finished high school, got married before having a child, and waited until age 20 to have that child were living in poverty in 1992.
Source: William Galston, "Beyond the Murphy Brown Debate." Institute for Family Values. Dec. 10, 1993.







More Statistics

 63% of youth suicides are from fatherless homes (Source: U.S. D.H.H.S., Bureau of the Census) 


 90% of all homeless and runaway children are from fatherless homes 


 85% of all children that exhibit behavioral disorders come from fatherless homes (Source: Center for Disease Control) 


 80% of rapists motivated with displaced anger come from fatherless homes (Source: Criminal Justice & Behavior, Vol 14, p. 403-26, 1978.) 


 71% of all high school dropouts come from fatherless homes (Source: National Principals Association Report on the State of High Schools.) 


 75% of all adolescent patients in chemical abuse centers come from fatherless homes (Source: Rainbows for all God`s Children.) 


 70% of juveniles in state-operated institutions come from fatherless homes (Source: U.S. Dept. of Justice, Special Report, Sept 1988) 


 85% of all youths sitting in prisons grew up in a fatherless home (Source: Fulton Co. Georgia jail populations, Texas Dept. of Corrections 1992) 



The State of Fatherhood



 37.9% of fathers have no access/visitation rights. (Source: p.6, col.II, para. 6, lines 4 & 5, Census Bureau P-60, #173, Sept 1991.) 


 "40% of mothers reported that they had interfered with the non-custodial father's visitation on at least one occasion, to punish the ex-spouse." (Source: p. 449, col. II, lines 3-6, (citing Fulton) Frequency of visitation by Divorced Fathers; Differences in Reports by Fathers and Mothers. Sanford Braver et al, Am. J. of Orthopsychiatry, 1991.) 


 "Overall, approximately 50% of mothers "see no value in the father`s continued contact with his children...." (Source: Surviving the Breakup, Joan Kelly & Judith Wallerstein, p. 125) 


 Only 11% of mothers value their husband's input when it comes to handling problems with their kids. Teachers & doctors rated 45%, and close friends & relatives rated 16%. (Source: EDK Associates survey of 500 women for Redbook Magazine. Redbook, November 1994, p. 36) 


 "The former spouse (mother) was the greatest obstacle to having more frequent contact with the children." (Source: Increasing our understanding of fathers who have infrequent contact with their children, James Dudley, Family Relations, Vol. 4, p. 281, July 1991.) 


 "A clear majority (70%) of fathers felt that they had too little time with their children." (Source: Visitation and the Noncustodial Father, Mary Ann Kock & Carol Lowery, Journal of Divorce, Vol. 8, No. 2, p. 54, Winter 1984.) 


 "Very few of the children were satisfied with the amount of contact with their fathers, after divorce."(Source: Visitation and the Noncustodial Father, Koch & Lowery, Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, Vol. 8, No. 2, p. 50, Winter 1984.) 


 "Feelings of anger towards their former spouses hindered effective involvement on the part of fathers; angry mothers would sometimes sabotage father's efforts to visit their children." (Source: Ahrons and Miller, Am. Journal of Orthopsychiatry, Vol. 63. p. 442, July `93.) 


 "Mothers may prevent visits to retaliate against fathers for problems in their marital or post-marital relationship." (Source: Seltzer, Shaeffer & Charing, Journal of Marriage & the Family, Vol. 51, p. 1015, November 1989.) 


 In a study: "Visitational Interference - A National Study" by Ms. J Annette Vanini, M.S.W. and Edward Nichols, M.S.W., it was found that 77% of non-custodial fathers are NOT able to "visit" their children, as ordered by the court, as a result of "visitation interference" perpetuated by the custodial parent. In other words, non-compliance with court ordered visitation is three times the problem of non-compliance with court ordered child support and impacts the children of divorce even more. (Originally published Sept. 1992) 


Child Support



 Information from multiple sources show that only 10% of all noncustodial fathers fit the "deadbeat dad" category: 90% of the fathers with joint custody paid the support due. Fathers with visitation rights pay 79.1%; and 44.5% of those with NO visitation rights still financially support their children. (Source: Census Bureau report. Series P-23, No. 173). 


 Additionally, of those not paying support, 66% are not doing so because they lack the financial resources to pay (Source: GAO report: GAO/HRD-92-39 FS). 


 52% of fathers who owe child support earn less than $6,155 per year. (Source: The Poverty Studies Institute at the University of Wisconsin, Madison,1993) 


 66% of single mothers work less than full time while only 10% of fathers fall into this category. In addition, almost 47% of non-custodial mothers default on support compared with the 27% of fathers who default.(Source: Garansky and Meyer, DHHS Technical Analysis Paper No. 42, 1991). 


 66% of all support not paid by non-custodial fathers is due to inability to pay. (Source: U.S. General Accounting Office Report, GAO/HRD-92-39FS January 1992). 


 Total Custodial Mothers: 11,268,000 


 Total Custodial Fathers: 2,907,000 (Source: Current Population Reports, U.S. Bureau of the Census, Series P-20, No. 458, 1991). 


The following is sourced from: Technical Analysis Paper No. 42, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Office of Income Security Policy, Oct. 1991, Authors: Meyer and Garansky.



 Custodial mothers who receive a support award: 79.6% 


 Custodial fathers who receive a support award: 29.9% 


 Non-custodial mothers who totally default on support: 46.9% 


 Non-custodial fathers who totally default on support: 26.9% 



False accusations of abuse:



 160,000 reports of suspected child abuse were reported in 1963. That number exploded to 1.7 million in 1985. 

 There were more than three million reports of alleged child abuse and neglect in 1995. However, two million of those complaints were without foundation or false! (Source: National Center on Child Abuse and Neglect (NCCAN) Child Maltreatment 1995: Reports From the States to the National Child Abuse and Neglect Data System) 

Infamous Fatherless People

BILLY THE KID 

SADDAM HUSSEIN 


SIRHAN SIRHAN 

ADOLPH HITLER 


ROBERT GRAYSMITH
(ZODIAC SERIAL KILLER) 

MARC LEPINE
(MASS MURDERER OF 14) 


JACK THE RIPPER 

LEE HARVEY OSWALD 


JOHN WILKES BOOTH 

JEFFREY DAHMER 


CHARLES MANSON(CULT LEADER)



"MONSTER" CODY
(L.A. CRIPS GANGLORD) 
                   

Negative Education Effects of Growing Up in a Fatherless Home




Negative Education Effects of Growing Up in a Fatherless Home





Negative Education Effects of Growing Up in a Fatherless Home thumbnail

Children from fatherless households tend to fare worse academically for several reasons.


Single mothers headed nearly 10 million American households in 2010, according to Catalyst.org. More than 65 percent of those mothers worked outside the home to make ends meet. This, as well as availability to health insurance, a support system of extended family members, and whether or not the father contributes financially to the household, appears to affect the grades of children growing up in fatherless homes.

Financial Considerations


Often -- but not always -- absent fathers pay child support. According to Adoption.com, academic test scores of children whose fathers do not contribute financially to their households are lower than those whose fathers do. However, Adoption.com notes that fathers who do pay support usually remain more active in their children's lives, and this could have as much to do with their academic performance as overall household incomes.
Overworked Mothers


The majority of single mothers who hold down jobs have less time to spend with their children, to help with their homework and to oversee school projects. Even if they work during hours when their children are in school, they may spend their evenings catching up with chores and other family responsibilities. Adoption.com theorizes that this, too, affects their children's economic performance. Working single mothers are also less likely to be able to remain active with parent-teacher associations and parent-assisted activities at school.

Health Issues


Children in fatherless households have a higher rate of school absenteeism, according to JRank. Illnesses can result from substandard living conditions stemming from insufficient income, and from single mothers not knowing where to go for affordable health insurance. Without insurance, visits to the pediatrician can be financially prohibitive and illnesses might linger longer than they would with care and medication. The National Center for Children in Poverty reports that children who miss more than 10 percent of their classes a year score significantly lower in general knowledge, math and reading.
Social Factors


"Psychology Today" indicates that not all children from fatherless households perform poorly academically. Fatherless children who have a strong support system of extended family members, concerned teachers and family friends tend to fare better than those who do not. This may not include a mother's boyfriend or new husband, however. Adoption.com indicates that when single mothers become involved with another man, their children may actually receive even less parental support from them, especially when stepchildren are involved. Children can feel displaced and, in turn, this can result in behavioral problems and a dip in academic performance.

Thursday, 3 January 2013

Giving Dowry Crime - DP 3 Complaint

DOWRY


The Big Fat Wedding




The payment of a dowry gift, often financial, has a long history in many parts of the world. In India, the payment of a dowry was prohibited in 1961 under Indian civil law and subsequently by Sections 304B and 498A of the Indian Penal Code were enacted to make it easier for the wife to seek redress from potential harassment by the husband's family. Dowry laws have come under criticism as they have been misused by women and their families.


In India, there are civil laws, criminal laws and special legislative acts against the tradition of Dowry. Someone accused of taking dowry is therefore subject to a multiplicity of legal processes.



Dowry

Section 2. Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961

Definition of “dowry”.—In this Act, “dowry” means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly— (a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or (b) by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person, at or before 1[or any time after the marriage] 2[in connection with the marriage of the said parties, but does not include] dower or mahr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies. Explanation I.— 3[***] Explanation II.—The expression “valuable security” has the same meaning as in Section 30 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).


Stridhan 

Stridhan is, generally speaking, what a woman can claim as her own property within a marital household. It may include her jewelry (gifted either by her family), gifts presented to her during the wedding or later, and the dowry articles given by her family.Gifts given by the parents of the bride are considered "stridhan", i.e. property of the woman, traditionally representing her share of her parent's wealth.[1]


An Act to prohibit the giving or taking of dowry


Be it enacted by Parliament in the Twelfth Year of the Republic of India as follows:


1. Short title, extent and commencement.-(1) This Act may be called the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.




It extends to the whole of India except the State of Jammu and Kashmir.


It shall come into force on such date as the Central Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, appoint.





2. Definition of `dowry’.-In this act, `dowry’ means any property or valuable security given or agreed to be given either directly or indirectly-

(a) by one party to a marriage to the other party to the marriage; or


(b) by the parents of either party to a marriage or by any other person, to either party to the marriage or to any other person;


at or before or any time after the marriage in connection with the marriage of said parties but does not include dower or mahr in the case of persons to whom the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) applies.

***

Explanation II.-The expression `valuable security’ has the same meaning as in Sec. 30 of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).

3. Penalty for giving or taking dowry.-(1) If any person, after the commencement of this Act, gives or takes or abets the giving or taking of dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than five years, and with the fine which shall not be less than fifteen thousand rupees or the amount of the value of such dowry, whichever is more:


Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than five years.


* * * Explanation I omitted by Sec.2 w.e.f 2nd October, 1985


(2)Nothing in sub-section (1) shall apply to or, in relation to,-

presents which are given at the time of a marriage to the bride (without nay demand having been made in that behalf):


Provided that such presents are entered in list maintained in accordance with rule made under this Act;presents which are given at the time of marriage to the bridegroom (without any demand having been made in that behalf):


Provided that such presents are entered in a list maintained in accordance with rules made under this Act;


Provided further that where such presents are made by or on behalf of the bride or any person related to the bride, such presents are of a customary nature and the value thereof is not excessive having regard to the financial status of the person by whom, or on whose behalf, such presents are given.


4. Penalty for demanding dowry.- If any person demands directly or indirectly, from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom as the case may be, any dowry, he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to two years and with fine which may extend to ten thousand rupees:


Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be mentioned in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months.


4-A. Ban on advertisement.- If any person-


(a) offers, through any advertisement in any newspaper, periodical, journal or through any other media any share in his property or of any money or both as a share in any business or other interest as consideration for the marriage of his son or daughter or any other relative,


(b) prints or publishes or circulates any advertisement referred to Cl. (a), he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend to five years , or with fine which may extend to fifteen thousand rupees:


Provided that the Court may, for adequate and special reasons to be recorded in the judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment for a term of less than six months.


5. Agreement for giving or taking dowry to be void.- Any agreement for the giving or taking of dowry shall be void.



6. Dowry to be for the benefit of the wife or heirs.- (1) Where any dowry is received by any person other than the woman in connection with whose marriage it is given, that person shall transfer it to the woman –


(a) if the dowry was received before marriage, within three months after the date of marriage; or


(b) if the dowry was received at the time of or after the marriage within three months after the date of its receipt; or


(c) if the dowry was received when the woman was a minor, within three months after she has attained the age of eighteen years, and pending such transfer, shall hold it in trust for the benefit of the woman.


(2) If any person fails to transfer any property as required by sub-section (1) within the time limit specified therefor or as required by sub-section(3), he shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months, but which may extend two years or with fine which shall not be less than five thousand rupees, but which may extend to ten thousand rupees or with both.


(3) Where the woman entitled to any property under sub-section (1) dies before receiving it, the heirs of the woman shall be entitled to claim it from the person holding it for the time being:


Provided that where such woman dies within seven years of her marriage, otherwise than due to natural causes, such property shall-if she has no children, be transferred to her parents, orif she has children, be transferred to such children and pending such transfer, be held in trust for such children.


(3-A) Where a person convicted under sub-section (2) for failure to transfer any property as required by sub-section (1)or sub-section (3) has not, before his conviction under that sub-section, transferred such property to the women entitled thereto or, as the case may be, her heirs, parents or children, the Court shall, in addition to awarding punishment under that sub-section, direct, by order in writing, that such person shall transfer the property to such woman, or as the case may be, her heirs, parents or children within such period as may be specified in the order, and if such person fails to comply with the direction within the period so specified, an amount equal to the value of the property may be recovered from him as if it were a fine imposed by such Court and paid to such woman, as the case may be, her heirs, parents or children.


(4)Nothing contained in this section shall affect provisions of Sec. 3 or Sec. 4.


7. Cognisance of offences.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2of 1974),-

no Court inferior to that of a Metropolitan magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class shall try any offence under this Act;

no Court shall take cognizance of an offence under this Act except upon –


(i) its own knowledge or a police report of the facts which constitute such offence, or


(ii) a complaint by the person aggrieved by offence or a parent or other relative of such person, or by any recognized welfare institution or organization:


it shall be lawful for a Metropolitan Magistrate or a Judicial Magistrate of the first class to pass any sentence authorized by this Act on any person convicted of any offence under this Act.


Explanation.- For the purposes of this sub-section, "recognised welfare institution or organization" means a social welfare institution or organization recognized in this behalf by the Central or State Government.


(2) Nothing in Chapter XXXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2of 1974), shall apply to any offence punishable under this Act.)



Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, a statement made by the person aggrieved by the offence shall not subject such person to a prosecution under this Act.

8. Offences to be congnizable for certain purposes and to be bailable and non-compoundable.- (1) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) shall apply to offences under this Act as of they were cognizable offences-

(a) for the purpose of investigation of such offences; and


(b) for the purpose of matters other than- 

(i) matters referred to in Sec. 42 of that Code, and

(ii) the arrest of person without a warrant or without an order of a Magistrate.


(2) Every offence under this Act shall be non-bailable and non-compoundable.


8-A. Burden of proof in certain cases.- Where any person is prosecuted for taking or abetting the taking of any dowry under Sec. 3, or the demanding of dowry under Sec.4, the burden of proving that he had not committed an offence under those sections shall be on him.


8-B. Dowry Prohibition Officers.-(1) The State Government may appoint as many Dowry Prohibition Officers as it thinks fit and specify the areas in respect of which they shall exercise their jurisdiction and powers under this Act.


(2) Every Dowry Prohibition Officer shall exercise and perform the following powers and functions, namely, -


(a) to see that the provisions of this Act are complied with;



(b) to prevent, as far as possible, the taking or abetting the taking of, of the demanding of, dowry;


(c) to collect such evidence as may be necessary for the prosecution of persons committing offences under the Act; and


(d) to perform such additional functions as may be assigned to him by the State Government, or as may be specified in the rules made under this Act.


(3) The State Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, confer such powers of a police officer as may be specified in the notification, the Dowry Prohibition Officer who shall exercise such powers subject to such limitations and conditions as may be specified by rules made under this Act.


(4) The State Government may, for the purpose of advising and assisting the Dowry Prohibition Officers in the efficient performance of their functions under this Act, appoint an advisory board consisting of not more than five social welfare workers (out of whom at least two shall be women) from the area in respect of which such Dowry Prohibition Officer exercises jurisdiction under sub-section (1).


9. Power to make rules.- (1) The Central Government may, by notification in the official Gazettee, make rules for carrying out the purposes of this Act.


(2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for-


(a) the form and manner in which, and the persons by whom, any list of presents referred to in sub-section (2) of Sec. 3 shall be maintained and all other matters connected therewith; and


(b) the better co-ordination of policy and action with respect to the administration of this Act.


(3)Every rules made under this section shall be laid as soon as may be after it is made before each House of Parliament while it is in session for a total period of thirty days which may be comprised in one session or in two or more successive sessions, and if, before the expiry of the session immediately following the session or the successive sessions aforesaid both Houses agree in making any modification in the rule or both Houses agree that the rule should not be made, the rule shall thereafter have effect only in such modified form or be; of no effect, as the case may be, so, however, that any such modification or annulment shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done under that rule.

10. Power of the State Government to make rules.- The State Government may, by notification in the official Gazette, make rules for carrying out the purposes of this Act.


(2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:


(a) the additional functions to be performed by the Dowry Prohibition Officers under sub-section(2) of Sec. 8-B;


(b) limitations and conditions subject to which a Dowry Prohibition Officer may exercise his functions under sub-section (3) of Sec. 8-B.


(3) Every rule made by the State Government under this section shall be laid as soon as may be after it is made before the State Legislature.



THE DOWRY PROHIBITION (MAINTENANCE OF LISTS OF PRESENTS TO THE BRIDE AND BRIDEGROOM) RULES, 1985


G.S.R. 664 (E), dated 19th August, 1985.- In exercise of the powers conferred by Sec.9 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961), the Central Government hereby makes the following rules, namely:

1. Short title and commencement.-(1) These rules may be called the Dowry Prohibition (Maintenance of Lists of Presents to the Bride and Bridegroom) Rules, 1985.


(2) They shall come into force on the 2nd day of October, 1985, being the date appointed for the coming into force of the Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 1984 (63 of 1984).

2. Rules in accordance with which lists of presents are to be maintained.-(1) The list of presents which are given at the time of the marriage to the bride shall be maintained by the bride.

(2) The list of present which are given at the time of the marriage to the bridegroom shall be maintained by the bridegroom.

Every list of presents referred to in sub-rule (1) or sub-rule (2),-


(a) shall be prepared at the time of the marriage or as soon as possible after the marriage:

(b) shall be in writing;

(c) shall contain,-

(i) a brief description of each present;

(ii) the approximate value of the present;

(iii)the name of the person who has given the present; and


(iv)where the person giving the present is related to the bride or bridegroom, a description of such relationship;

(d) shall be signed by both the bride and the bridegroom.


Explanation. 1.- Where the bride is unable to sign, she may affix her thumb impression in lieu of her signature after having the list read out to her and obtaining the signature on the list, of the person who has so read out the particulars contained in the list.


Explanation 2.- Where the bridegroom is unable to sign he may affix his thumb-impression in lieu of his signature after having the list read out to him and obtaining the signature on the list of the person who has so read out the particulars contained in the list.

(4) The bride or the bridegroom may, if she or he so desires, obtain on either or both of the lists referred to in sub-rule (1) or sub-rule (2) the signature or signatures of any relations of the bride or the bridegroom or of any other person or persons present at the time of the marriage.


The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961


sec 3. Penalty for giving or taking dowry .-

1(1)] If any person, after the commencement of this Act, gives or takes or abets the giving or taking of dowry, he shall be punishable 2 with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than 3 five years, and with fine which shall not be less than fifteen thousand rupees or the amount of the value of such dowry, whichever is more:]

Provided that the Court may, for a adequate and special reasons to be recorded in he judgment, impose a sentence of imprisonment of a term of less than 4 five years.]

5(2) Nothing is sub section (1) shall apply to, or in relation to, -

(a) Presents which are given at the time of a marriage to the bride (without any demand having been made in that behalf).

(b) Presents which are given at the time of a marriage to the bridegroom (without any demand having been made in that behalf).

Provided that such presents are entered in a list maintained in accordance with the rules made under this Act.

Provided further that where such presents are made by or on behalf of the bride or any person related to the bride, such presents are of a customary nature and the value thereof is not excessive having regard to the financial status of the person by whom, or on whose behalf, such presents are given .

COMMENTS

(i) Section 3 does not contravene articles 14, 19, 21 and 22 of the Constitution and therefore this section is not ultra vires of the said articles; Indrawati v. Union of India, I (1991) DMC 117 (All).

(ii) The offence is founded in the relationship of the property demanded as abettor with the nature of demand. It should not bear a mere connection with marriage; Madan Lal v. Amar Nath, (1984) 2 Rec Cr. 581.

(iii) Abetment is a preparatory act and connotes active complicity on the part of the abettor at a point of time prior to the actual commission of the offence; Muthummal v.Maruthal, 1981 Cr. LJ 833 (Mad).



1. Section 3 re-numbered as sub-section (1) thereof by Act 63 of 1984, sec. 3 (w.e.f. 2-10-1985).

2. Subs. by Act 63 of 1984, sec. 3, for certain words (w.e.f. 2-10-1985).

3. Subs. by Act 43 of 1986, sec. 3, for certain words (w.e.f. 19-11-1986).

4. Subs. by Act 43 of 1986, sec. 3, for “six months” (w.e.f. 19-11-1986).

5. Ins. by Act 63 of 1984, sec. 3 (w.e.f. 2-10-1985).



HIGH COURT JUDGMENT ON DOWRY



Take Cognizance Against Dowry Givers & Furnish Income Tax returns in Dowry Complaints 

Written by J. Shiv Narayan Dhingra 


Tuesday, 04 August 2009 08:13 


IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


Reserved on: 12.02.2007


Date of Decision: February 23, 2007 CRL.M.C.7262/2006


23.02.2007


Smt. Neera Singh ..... Petitioner Through:Mr. L.B. Rai and Mr. V.K. Singh, Advocates


versus


THE STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI)andORS.....Respondents Through: Mr. Vikas Arora, Advocate for respondent Ms. Richa Kapoor with Ms. Sukriti Bhardwaj, Advocates for State.


CORAM: JUSTICE SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA

1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment" YES.


2.To be referred to the Reporter or not" YES


3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest" YES


SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J


1. This petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. has been made on behalf of petitioner for quashing/setting aside the order dated 20th July, 2006 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Delhi whereby the learned ASJ upheld the order of the Trial Court discharging appellants Bishan Pal Singh, Smt. Santosh Devi, Gajendar Singh and Toshan Singh. Bishan Pal Singh is the father-in-law of the complainant, Smt. Santosh Devi is the mother-in-law of complainant and Gajender Singh and Toshan Singh are the brothers-in-law (husband's brothers) of the complainant. The complainant made allegations involving almost every member of the family of her in laws. Learned Metropolitan Magistrate, after going through the evidence observed as under:


"Perusal of record shows that the allegations of the complainant are against the accused person except the accused husband with respect of taunting for bringing insufficient dowry. But there is not a single allegation that the accused persons made any subsequent demand for dowry and consequent harassment for not meeting with their demands. Admittedly the complainant and her husband and in laws of the complainant were staying at Ghaziabad. Whereas the complainant most of the time resided with her husband at Riwari. It was held in AIR 1996(Supreme Court) 67 that taunting for not bringing sufficient dowry is distinct from demand of dowry and should not be confused with. Though taunting for bringing insufficient dowry is also an uncivilized act but does not come within the purview of Section 498A, sufficient to constitute the offence i.e. the cruelty to the complainant with respect to not fulfillment of demand of of dowry. There is not a single allegation that except for the alleged taunting the complainant was ever harassed with respect to further demand of dowry. Hence the prima facie case under Section 498A is not made out against accused Bishan Pal, Santosh Devi, Gazender Singh and Kaushan Singh."


2. Against this order, the petitioner preferred a revision petition before the Court of Sessions and the learned Sessions Judge after considering the entire material observed as under:


" In the present case, husband, Yashwant Singh, after marriage was residing separately from his parent and brothers. He was residing at Rewari, Haryana. The Ld. Trial Court found that allegation of the complainant are against the husband only. There were no specific allegations against the accused persons, namely, Bishan Pal Singh, Smt. Santosh Devi, Gajender Singh and Toshan Singh. The Ld. Trial Court was of the opinion that there was not even a single allegation that the accused persons made any subsequent demand of dowry and harassed the complainant for not fulfilling their demand. The complainant most of the time was residing with her husband at Rewari, Haryana. There might have been one or two instances of taunting for not bringing sufficient dowry but they are not sufficient enough to attract Section 498A. There are not specific allegations with respect to entrustment of dowry items to the accused persons. Since, the complainant stayed with her husband at Rewari, Haryana, the entrustment of dowry articles can be presumed to be to the husband. There were no specific allegations of entrustment to the accused person, namely, Bishan Pal Singh, Smt. Santosh Devi, Gajender Singh and Toshan Singh."


3. A perusal of the complaint would show that as per allegations dowry demand was made even before marriage i.e. at the time of engagement and an AC was demanded from her father by her in-laws and her father had assured that AC would be given at the time of marriage. However, she told her father "You have given car and AC at the demand of in laws, what will happen if they demand a flat tomorrow". Despite her this conversation with her father and despite her knowing that dowry demand had already been made, she married in the same family irrespective of the fact that she was well-educated lady and was an engineer and her brother was in police. In fact, these kinds of allegations made after breakdown of the marriage show the mentality of the complainant. I consider where these kinds of allegations are made, the police should simultaneously register a case under Dowry Prohibition Act (in short " the Act") against the parents of the complainant as well, who married their daughter despite demand of dowry. Section 3 of the Act prohibits giving and taking of dowry. If a woman of grown up age and well educated gets married to a person despite dowry demand, she and her family becomes accomplaice in the crime under Dowry Prohibition Act.


4. Now-a-days, exorbitant claims are made about the amount spent on marriage and other ceremonies and on dowry and gifts. In some cases claim is made of spending crores of rupees on dowry without disclosing the source of income and how funds flowed. I consider time has come that courts should insist upon disclosing source of such funds and verification of income from tax returns and police should insist upon the compliance of the Rules under Dowry Prohibition Act and should not entertain any complaint, if the rules have not been complied with. Rule 2 of the Dowry Prohibition(Maintenance of List of Presents to the Bride and Bridegroom) Rules, 1985 reads as under:


"2. RULES IN ACCORDANCE WITH WHICH LISTS OF PRESENTS ARE TO BE MAINTAINED.-


(1) The list of presents which are given at the time of the marriage to the bride shall be maintained by the bride.


(2)The list of presents which are given at the time of the marriage to the bridegroom shall be maintained by the bridegroom.


(3)Every list of presents referred to in Sub-rule(1) or Sub-rule(2)-


(a) shall be prepared at the time of the marriage or as soon as possible after the marriage;


(b) shall be in writing;


(c) shall contain:-


(i) a brief description of each present;


(ii) the approximate value of the present;


(iii) the name of the person who has given the present; and


(iv) where the person giving the present is related to the bride or bridegroom, a description of such relationship.


(d) shall be signed by both the bride and the bridegroom.


5. The Metropolitan Magistrates should take cognizance of the offence under the Act in respect of the offence of giving dowry whenever allegations are made that dowry was given as a consideration of marriage, after demand. Courts should also insist upon compliance with the rules framed under the Act and if rules are not complied with, an adverse inference should be drawn. If huge cash amounts are alleged to be given at the time of marriage which are not accounted anywhere, such cash transactions should be brought to the notice of the Income Tax Department by the Court so that source of income is verified and the person is brought to law. It is only because the Courts are not insisting upon compliance with the relevant provisions of law while entertaining such complaints and action is taken merely on the statement of the complainant, without any verification that a large number of false complaints are pouring in.


6. I consider that the kinds of vague allegations as made in the complaint by the petitioner against every member of the family of husband cannot be accepted by any court at their face value and the allegations have to be scrutinized carefully by the Court before framing charge. A perusal of the complaint of the petitioner would show that she made all kinds of allegations against her husband regarding beating, that her husband was having illicit relationship with 35 girls; he forced her to write suicide note, abused her, taunted her, threatened and told her that he was getting another bride of more richer family while she was in Rewari with her husband and she made telephone call to her parents who came to Rewari and took her to parental home. She had also given phone to one of her friends Jigyasa. A perusal of the statement of Jigyasa would show that she told Jigyasa that it was her husband who was torturing her and behaving with cruelty. However, in her complaint, she made vague and omnibus allegations against every other family members. The statement made by her and other witnesses have been scrutinized by me, except vague allegations and allegations of taunting, there are no allegations of perpetuating cruelty on her by any of the four respondents in order to compel her to bring more dowry or any particular items.


7. In view of my foregoing discussion, I find no reason to disagree with the order of two Courts below. The petition is hereby dismissed being devoid of merits.

February 23, 2007 SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA, J. rd 



IPC Section 406



This section, for offences related to Criminal Breach of Trust, is usually applied in investigation of stridhan recovery from the husband and his family.


Offences under this section are bailable and cognizable.


Section 406.



Punishment for criminal breach of trust.


Whoever commits criminal breach of trust shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, or with fine, or with both.



DP3 Complaint against Father-in-Law and Mother-in-Law [ Dowry Givers and Abettors] to Police Station,



From:Complainant 





To 


The Station House Officer 


O/o 498a Greedy Bench 


498a Police Station. 


Sir, 


Sub: Complaint against 498a FIL & others 






I, Name, S/o ??????, the Complainant herein, Age: atttained Puberty, Occupation: Private employee, R/o #2728, A.P. - 498. hereby state that respectfully submit that 


On Date my wife Smt. 498a [aka: 498a-wifename ] filed a criminal complaint with FIR No.114/2010 & CC No. 170/2011 on the file of your [498a Bench] Police Station and Hon’ble Court of First Additional Metropolitan Magistrate respectively. The SHO/IO have reportedly investigated and verified the facts and filed a charge sheet. 


In the complaint Smt. 498a the de facto complainant claimed that she had given a sum of 


Rs. 1,00,000 as dowry and purportedly given to me during the marriage ceremony held on date @ 498a marriage. The IO/SHO have reportedly investigated and verified the facts and filed a charge sheet with the memo of evidence these are part of your station records. In your memo of evidence you have further affirmed and testified to a court of law to the fact of giving and taking of dowry and its related abetments by the concerned and named offenders. 


In this connection it is submitted for you kind information that “dowry giving and its abetment” is a cognizable offence U/s 3 of DP Act, 1961. I need not emphasize or over state this aspect as your station authourities are not only well versed with penal code in general and specific case detail in particular. However, a FIR and a Criminal case ought to have being registered by the SHO which was not done for reasons best known to you. 


This is therefore to lodge a formal complaint against Smt 498a, the offenders, the abettors of the crime as here under. 


Dowry Givers: 1). 498a FIL [Occupation] 
                    2). 498a MIL [Occupation] 


Dowry Abettors: 3). 498a BIL [Occupation] 

                       4). 498a SIL [Occupation] 

                       5). 498a Relatives & Others 


It is submitted further that all these records and details are already with you and you have also testified in a court of law about the crime and its details. 


This is therefore to request you to please book a case and register a FIR against the named offenders and abettors in terms of provision under section 3 of DPAct, 1961. 


You may also kindly inform the reasons and justifications as to why you choose to ignore consciously and deliberately to file the instant case and register the FIR as soon as your received the details of the crime on 23/05/10 at your station. 


Kindly expedite your investigation and keep me posted with details of FIR. 


Thanking you, Yours faithfully, 






[Complainant] 






Copy to: 1) ACP O/o ACP, North Sub-divisional, Madhavara 


2) DCP [Law and Order] O/o CP - Vizag City. 


3) CP O/o CP - Vizag city. 


4) IGP[Andhra Region] O/o DGP, Saifabad, Hyd. 


5) DGP O/o DGP, Saifabad, Hyd. 


6) Principal Secretary to Home Minsiter, O/o HM, Secretariat, Hyd. 


7) Principal Secretary to Chief Secretary, O/o CS, Govt of AP Secretariat, Hyd.