A take: For some memory travels only upto 4 months !


Here are compilation takes for refreshing 'foot in mouth" syndrome of status quo called memories:


May 2003, the National Commission for Women (NCW) felicitated one Ms. Nisha Sharma for canceling her own wedding, standing up against the evil of dowry and sending out a “loud and clear message to dowry seekers”, and Ms. Sharma became a role model for all women, overnight.  The truth, that her wedding was not cancelled due to additional demands for dowry, but because of Ms. Sharma’s pending issues with a former boyfriend, was quietly pushed under the carpet by the NCW.

In the same vein, in July 2007, a woman called Pooja Chauhan made false accusations of dowry harassment against her husband and mother-in-law, and paraded the streets of Rajkot semi-nude as a symbol of protest. The NCW was very prompt in reacting to the incident, ensured the arrest of the husband, mother-in-law, and neighbors too, for allegedly committing domestic violence against Ms. Chauhan. It did not take too long for the truth to come out and for the NCW spokesperson to put her foot in her mouth, and quickly cover up their faux pas.

In February 2009, NCW showed its characteristic promptness in ordering a probe into the “Mangalore pub incident” when a number of girls were allegedly molested by some goons in the middle of the night. The NCW and other women’s rights champions had a field-day harping about increasing atrocities on women.  When the investigation report filed by Karnataka Women’s Commission Chairperson, Nirmala Venkatesh, revealed certain inconvenient truths, the NCW found itself in the same usual “foot-in-its-mouth-situation”. This time the NCW rejected Ms. Venkatesh’s report, and fired her to save its own face.

On 5 October 2009, an airhostess approached the NCW with allegations of assault and molestation on a pilot and co-pilot of a plane on which she was a crew member. While counter allegations and witness statements quickly revealed that the story of the airhostess may just be another story like those mentioned above, the NCW habitually jumped into action, and instituted a panel for investigation into the issue, in less than 2.5 days after the incident. The two pilots have been fired even before the investigation could begin. Knowing NCW’s track record of rendering justice in such situations, does one have to really guess the outcome of this episode?

Never mind! The NCW is just doing its job of looking after protection and empowerment of women in a male-dominated society. After all, it should be okay to penalize a few innocent men to protect thousands of vulnerable women, right?

Oh! Wait a minute! Don’t jump to conclusions so soon!

Beginning year 2005, several elderly women, falsely accused under IPC Section 498A (for the only crime of mothering sons and getting the sons married) approached the NCW, seeking justice. These women have long heart-rending accounts of how they are being harassed by their daughters-in-law. The NCW’s short, yet prompt and candid response to these mothers was, “Your matter does not fall under the mandate of the Commission”.

Similarly, in June 2009, a 45 year old woman who was arrested on charges of dowry harassment was allegedly gang-raped in police custody, in Bhopal. The news, which was reported in leading newspapers, went completely unnoticed by the NCW. No panel, no probe, even 2.5 months after the incident. Surprised? No need to be. This is simply one more matter that does not fall under the mandate of NCW.

Indian women need to be very clear about their expectations from the NCW, when the NCW is so clear about its mandate. You should know by now that the NCW is literally working overtime for the cause of disgruntled, adulterous, parasitic and criminal-minded wives, girlfriends and female workers. How many more matters would you expect the NCW to include in its mandate?

Why are so many of you women surprised about NCW’s modi operandi by being their mouth piece? Beats me!

NCW- NATIONAL COMISSION FOR WIVES

AS CWG2010 - COMMON WHORES GAMES 2010

Hang dowry seekers: Ex-judge

Justice V R Krishna Iyer, former judge of the Supreme Court on Tuesday said, “The Indian Dowry Prevention Act is still inadequate. Not a single person has been sentenced to death for dowry harassment till date.”

https://expressbuzz.com/Cities/Bangalore/hang-dowry-seekers-ex-judge/88948.html

no one can be hanged for dowry seeking there is no such law in ipc. if any judge thinks so for dowry harassemant he does cnot know law and needs to be hanged.

regarding dowry deaths: if there are proofs beyond any doubt such people shud be definitely hanged on main road of city so that no one dares do it again.

and also

if there is a false 498a or 304b filed, then other party should be given same punishment which they demanded for the falsely accused.

Hey, member, no honorifics here in such extremities. This is a public platform, messages are read by some 83K members from different wlaks of life and two people may hate to agree to disagree each others views but no one may go to such explicit levels of name calling is requested to all readers.

aishwarya ji, truth behind all this stories is known only to god.

ha ha ha ha ha ha full form for CWG was not invented by dabang but is the parliamentary language used by our honorable cabinet minister in parliament while commenting about CWG

This language is not parliamentary language but language spoken in the parliament. So one should understand  difference between parliamentary language and the one actually spoken there. If a priest abuses men/women with horrific expressions, that language would not be called religious language or priestly language. 

Without dowry rarely any marriage is taking place (or being solemnized), and this tradition is going on unchecked, uninterrupted. The dowry seekers very rarely get exposed, and are negligible and can be counted on fingers. Every law and its' machiney has failed to check this dowry tradition.Unless society botcott this or puts check, this is not going to die easily

Dear Friends:

I have a question here which I want to post to gain knowledge.

In the tape, the girl's family also admits that they gave 2 lakh rupees in dowry already.

I am not sure if giving dowry is also a crime and if so, why police did not book girl's family also into custody?

Looks like Indian Police are very biased and have very narrow approach. Evenif the story is true, I would like to observer that the police acted in a very biased mode and the inspector involved in this case must be asked why he only arrested boy's family and not the girl's family.

Thanks

Mahesh

mr mahesh you touched the real point in a very sobber manner.

mr aejaz ahmed,

Justice V R Krishna Iyer

a very balanced personality in judiciary. he can not say such things.

perhaps this news created and spreaded by a non legal professional, because, highest punishment awarded in dowery act is not capital punishment. therefore question of awarding capital punishment does not arise in dowry cases.

I total agree with DABANGG LADY...Hang those person who files false cases....

If such a law comes into force that allows hanging the person(s) who files false cases then so many false 498a wives will get into trouble. I am not sure CWG would ever allow such law hamper its business.

I think there is one quote by great Galib on such:

"Humko malum hain jannat ki hakikat lekin...... Dil ko behkaneke liye ye khayal achcha hai!"

(Meaning: I know the reality of the heavens but imagination of such is interesting.)

Also, Mr. Ashutosh, this is not your quote but Mirza Galib's so please don't take credit for it.

Hi All,

In the above news printed by a daily they have printed the names of Boy & his Family members names. Girls family them selves agree that they have given 2 lakhs as DOWRY.No fool is going to give money if they don’t find it worthfull.They want their daughter to get married  in a Financially strong & well settled Family in Financial Capital like Mumbai.Why this News paper has not printed the name of this BRAVE Girl & their Family members because this family did a innovative act,No they want to increase their popularity of their paper,It’s a modern stategy. Yes everyone has the Right to expose the facts before the Society and Law.But the girl’s family should have denied to give 2 lakh’s as they are against Dowry they should have stooped the relation as there was a demand for money in the early stages. They might have bribed the police to file a case against the Boy’s family and now they will ask huge amounts to settle it down.Now the girl’s family will be in search of a new victim after this settlement…….

We can refer to these Judgment’s :

Dowry givers should also be prosecuted: Court

New Delhi, Jun 27 (PTI)

Observing that the anti-dowry law has been reduced to a ''paper tiger'' due to the bride's family giving away dowry in many cases, a court here said they also need to be prosecuted like the groom's family to eliminate the social evil.

"Dowry is a two way traffic and unless there is a giver there can be no taker and it is for this reason that in order to eliminate this evil both the giver and taker have been made liable (under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act)," Additional Sessions Judge Kamini Lau said.

"It is not possible to leave one and book another," the court said while resenting the prevalent practice of the bride's family giving dowry.

"It is unfortunate that this legislation has been reduced to a mere paper tiger and what is more unfortunate is the fact that it is none else but the family of the woman (involved in the marriage) who is responsible for non-accomplishment of this legislation," the court said.It further said the social welfare legislation meant to remove the evil of dowry should be implemented effectively.

"Dowry is shamelessly demanded, given and received under the pretext of social compulsions. It is time that this social welfare legislation (Dowry Prohibition Act) is ruthlessly implemented and none is permitted to take the shield of social compulsions. This has become all the more necessary in order to check the misuse and abuse of Special Laws," ASJ Lau said.

The court also said the expensive gifts given by relatives to a couple before and after marriage must be brought to the notice of authorities for levying taxes.It passed the observations while dismissing a plea of a woman seeking to quash criminal proceedings initiated against her family for giving dowry, which came following a complaint by her husband who faced dowry harassment charges.

In the case, Uma Devi, estranged wife of Sunil Garg, had challenged the order passed by a Metropolitan Magistrate in October last year directing registration of an FIR against her family members for giving dowry during her marriage in April 2008.The magistrate had ordered registration of the FIR on Garg's complaint referring to her admission of giving gifts and money to his family.

Source : Deccan Herald, https://www.deccanherald.com/content/77747/dowry-givers-should-prosecuted-court.html

No conviction for mere demand of dowry: SC

The Supreme Court has ruled that a person cannot be convicted for merely demanding dowry unless the demand is followed by mental or physical torture resulting in the death of the victim.

A Bench of Justices R M Lodha and A K Patnaik said in a judgement that the prosecution has to establish convincing evidence that the accused had subjected the victim to torture soon before her death in connection with the demand.

"The evidence of Prosecution Witness-2, PW-4 and PW-5 shows that Jagdish and Gordhani played a role in the demand of dowry for a scooter or Rs.25,000/ for Amar Singh but demand of dowry by itself is not an offence under Section 498A or Section 304B IPC".

"What is punishable under Section 498A or Section 304B of IPC is the act of cruelty or harassment by the husband or the relative of the husband against the woman," the Bench said.

The Bench passed the judgement while upholding the acquittal of Gordhani, mother-in-law, and Jagdish, brother-in-law, in a dowry death case of newly-married woman Santosh in Rajasthan's Alwar district in 8th March, 1993.

It however, upheld the conviction of the husband Amar Singh.

The sessions court had convicted all the three for dowry death(304B) and 498A(harassment of married woman by husband/relatives).

The Rajasthan High Court had on an appeal from the accused quashed the conviction of Jagdish and Gordhari while sustaining the life sentence imposed on Amar Singh.

While the state government had appealed against the acquittals, Amar Singh challenged his conviction.

Regards,

Mallik