It’s time… Parliament should make law to protect husbands from harassment : SC.

Reporting by Amit Kashyap.

It’s time… Parliament should make law to protect husbands from harassment : SC.
————————————————————–
Warned that Country is on the verge of ” War between two sex”.
————————————————————–
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 73 OF 2015

Social Action Forum for Manav Adhikar …Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

Union of India 
Ministry of Law and Justice and others …Respondent(s)

WITH
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1265 OF 2017
WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 156 of 2017

Order dated : 14.9.2018.
————————————————————–

http://medlifeinternational.go2cloud.org/aff_c?offer_id=305&aff_id=11234

The Supreme Court said that if Parliament had enacted Section 498A IPC in 1983 to protect women from cruelty in matrimonial homes, it was now obliged to frame protective measures to curb harassment of husbands and their relatives from misuse and prevent a “war between two sexes”.

A bench of CJI Dipak Misra and Justices A M Khanwilkar and D Y Chandrachud said the perception of persecution under Section 498A because of “super sensitivity” and overzealousness by police to arrest husbands could bring about social disaster with the “potential to vertically divide society”.

The SC said it was obligatory on the part of the legislature to enact protective measures against misuse of Section 498A and for courts to carefully scrutinise genuineness of complaints while establishing from evidence the requirement of keeping those arrested in custody rather than enlarging them on bail.

Writing the judgment for the bench, CJI Misra said the SC could not lose sight of growing abuse of the provision. “When implementation of the law (arrest) is abused by law enforcing agency, the legislature introduces a protective provision as regards arrest. Needless to say, the courts have ample power to grant anticipatory bail, and even to quash criminal proceedings totally to stabilise lawful balance because no court of law remotely conceives a war between two sexes,” the bench said.

Although…..

Judgment removed a few safeguards against arrest of husbands and their relatives introduced by a two-judge SC bench last year in its decision in the Rajesh Sharma case.

And said……

While removing the safeguard, which was hailed by ‘harassed husbands’, the bench showed that it was alive to concerns over immediate arrest after lodging of an FIR under Section 498A. Parliament had introduced Section 498A in IPC in 1983 to deal with increasing number of dowry deaths while categorising the offence as cognizable and non-bailable.

SC: COURT NEEDS STRONG EVIDENCE IN SUMMONING ACCUSED UNDER S 319 CRPC

The Court had ordered that court must need a strong evidence while summoning accused under S 319 CrPC. The appeal has been heard by the bench of JusticeR. Banumathi<> and Justice Subhash Reddy and the order was passd by Allahabad High Court. In this case the complaint was filed by the father of the victim under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.The Court had stated that “Neither the complaint nor the evidence of witnesses indicates as to the role played by the appellants in the commission of the offence and which accused has committed what offence. Under such circumstances, it cannot be said that the prosecution has shown prima facie material for summoning the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC.” 
The Court also observed that "Section 319(1) Cr.P.C. empowers the Court to proceed against any person not shown as an accused if it appears from the evidence that such person has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together along with the accused. It is fairly well settled that before the court exercises its jurisdiction in terms of Section 319 Cr.P.C., it must arrive at satisfaction that the evidence adduced by the prosecution, if unrebutted, would lead to conviction of the persons sought to be added as the accused in the case. In such circumstances, there is no justification for summoning the appellants even under Section 498A IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act. It is also pertinent to point out that upon completion of investigation, the Investigating Officer felt that no offence under Sections 498A, 304-B IPC and under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act is made out."

The Section 319 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure states about Power to proceed against other persons appearing to be guilty of offence.

(1) Where, in the course of any inquiry into, or trial of, an offence, it appears from the evidence that any person not being the accused has committed any offence for which such person could be tried together with the accused, the Court may proceed against such person for the offence which he appears to have committed.

(2) Where such person is not attending the Court, he may be arrested or summoned, as the circumstances of the case may require, for the purpose aforesaid.

(3) Any person attending the Court, although not under arrest or upon a summons, may be detained by such Court for the purpose of the inquiry into, or trial of, the offence which he appears to have committed.

(4) Where the Court proceeds against any person under sub- section (1), then-

(a) the proceedings in respect of such person shall be commenced a fresh, and the witnesses re- heard;

For additional details, you can refer to lawyers in India.

Husband has the right to cross examine Wife.

DELHI HIGH COURTBench: JUSTICE Veena Birbal

KAILASH JUNEJA 

Vs. PREETI JUNEJA

On 25 April 2012

JUDGEMENT

The petitioner/husband has filed a divorce petition against the respondent/wife which is listed for final arguments before the learned Trial Court. A challenge has been made to the order dated 18.12.2010 by which opportunity of cross-examination of RW-1 i.e. the respondent/wife has been closed.2. The Counsel for appellant submits that the respondent had filed her affidavit only on 16.12.2010. On the said date, the petitioner had given maintenance of Rs. 30,000 to the respondent and due to non-availability of Counsel for petitioner/husband, the case was adjourned for 18.12.2010 subject to costs of Rs. 1000.3. Even on 18.12.2010, the Counsel for petitioner could not appear and the learned Trial Court has closed the opportunity of cross-examination of RW-1. It is stated that on the said date RE was closed and the matter was listed for final arguments.4. The learned Counsel submits that till date arguments have not been heard and the matter is listed before Trial Court on 28.4.2012. It is further submitted that the right of cross-examination is an important right and if the same is not given great prejudice will be caused to the petitioner inasmuch as evidence of respondent/wife will go unattributed. It is further submitted that the same will also have serious consequences on the petitioner/husband as petitioner/husband would not be in a position to demolish the stand of respondent.5. The respondent has all through appeared in person. She has opposed the present petition and has contended that keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is not entitled for any opportunity to cross-examine the respondent.6. I have considered the submissions made and perused the material on record 7. It may be noticed that the case was listed for the first time for evidence of respondent on 16.12.2010. On the said date, respondent/wife has filed her evidence by way of affidavit. The case was then adjourned to 18.12.2010. On the said date Counsel for petitioner/husband was not present. The impugned order has serious consequences on the petitioner/husband as the evidence of respondent will go un rebutted as right to cross-examine has been closed which is a valuable right of petitioner/husband. The petitioner should not be allowed to suffer due to lapse on the part of Counsel.8. In the interest of justice, the impugned order dated 18.12.2010 by which right of the petitioner/husband to cross-examine the respondent has been closed, is set aside subject to costs of Rs. 5,000 to the respondent. The petitioner is given one opportunity to cross-examine the respondent/wife. The parties will appear on 28.4.2012 before the Trial Court and the petitioner shall pay the costs of Rs. 5,000 to the respondent and the Trial Court shall give a suitable date for cross-examination of RW-1. It is clarified that only one opportunity will be given to the petitioner for cross-examination and prior to that he will also clear all the arrears of maintenance pendent lite. The petition stands disposed of LCR be sent back forthwith. CM 5703/2011.In view of above, no further orders are required on this application.

The same stands disposed of accordingly.

Supreme Court says courts cannot force husband to keep wife

The Supreme Court has said that courts cannot force a husband to "keep his wife" as it asked a man, a pilot by profession, to deposit Rs 10 lakh as interim maintenance for his estranged wife and upkeep of their son.
The Supreme Court has said that courts cannot force a husband to "keep his wife" as it asked a man, a pilot by profession, to deposit Rs 10 lakh as interim maintenance for his estranged wife and upkeep of their son. The apex court restored the bail order of the Madras High Court which was cancelled after the husband refused to comply with the compromise agreement. "We cannot force a husband to keep his wife. It's a human relationship. You (man) deposit Rs 10 lakh with the trial court which will be withdrawn by the wife unconditionally to meet her immediate requirement," a bench of justices Adarsh Goel and U U Lalit said. When the counsel appearing for the man said that the amount be reduced, the bench said that apex court is not a family court and no negotiations can be held. "If you agree to deposit Rs 10 lakh immediately, the bail order would be restored," the bench said. The counsel then agreed to deposit Rs 10 lakh but sought some time. "We are inclined to restore the order of bail in view of the statement made on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner will deposit a sum of Rs 10 lakh with the trial court within a period of four weeks," the bench said. It said that the amount may be withdrawn by the wife unconditionally, so that she can meet immediate requirements for herself and the child. "The said amount will be subject to adjustment in any future proceedings. The parties are free to reach mutual settlement for rehabilitation, as was earlier proposed. Accordingly, the order of bail will stand restored subject to above stipulations," the court said.
It directed that the pending proceedings may be completed by the trial court, as far as possible within a period of three months, as already directed by the high court. The Madurai bench of Madras High Court had on October 11, cancelled his anticipatory bail saying the man has entered into a compromise memo with the complainant but contrary to the compromise memo, he had gone back from his promise and filed an evasive counter affidavit to wriggle out from his responsibilities. It had noted that the very first condition of the memo that he would take her and their child to his place of working along with himself has not been fulfilled and under the pretext of reunion has made the wife to drop the departmental action that was initiated against him.
The high court had also noted that due to the false promise, the life of their child is in limbo as a transfer certificate has been obtained from the school. It directed the police to complete the investigation and file the charge sheet before the trial court within three months. The husband was booked under various sections of IPC including dowry harassment.