Details required abt the case

 

Originally posted by :Meena Sharma
"	false case that everything has got stolen by me and my parents and he doesnt have anything.

"

Court also know that they are telling lie but court need proof.

Crpc 24 will also help for maintenance.

https://www.vakilno1.com/bareacts/CrPc/s125.htm

 

Oh ! sorry its crpc 125.

I have filed dv, 125 and 498 in mumbai as me and my son are staying here with my parents. Further, my husband has filed 156 (3) and sec 9 in delhi and i have already filed a transfer petition to trfr section 9. Pls explain where i can file the case to speed up the trials under sec 21 B, as suggested by you.

I understand, but false cases are killing my valuable time..which i should have utilized for my and my son's career.

transfer petition to trfr section 9

what was the above line about ?

(if it is Sec. 9, HMA, it is about RCR. It has nothing to do with Transfer)

 

Transfer of the case will be governed by CPC 25. U have to file application at SC.

https://www.vakilno1.com/bareacts/civilprocedure/s25.htm

 

21B :

in the same court. Verbal pleding / application will suffice. Or file application at Bombay HC.

 

23A   Relief for respondent in divorce and other proceedings

In any proceeding for divorce or judicial separation or restitution of conjugal rights, the respondent may not only oppose the relief sought on the   ground of petitioner’s adultery, cruelty or desertion, but also make a counter - claim for any relief under this Act on that ground; and if the petitioner’s  adultery, cruelty or desertion is proved, the court may give to  respondent any  relief under  this Act to which he or she would  have been entitled if he or she had presented a petition seeking such relief such on that ground].

24        Maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings

Where in any proceedings under this Act it appears to the court that either the wife or the husband, as the case may be, has no independent income, sufficient for her or his support and the necessary expenses of the proceeding, it may, on the application of the wife or the husband,  order the respondent to pay to the petitioner the expenses of the proceedings, and monthly during the proceedings such sum as, having regard to the petitioner’s own income and the respondent, it may seem to the court to be reasonable.

Dear Meena Sharmaji,

I have gone through all your above posts.  I feel sorry that except one member (he knows who is he), none has provided you any legal advice except moral preachings.  Many times, enquirers come on this forum, get confused whether they are seeking legal advice or moral preachings from temples, masjids and churches.  Most of the respondents have neither legal knowledge nor unbiased attitude towards women to give proper legal  advice.  They are, themselves, fighting cases against their wives andwith their own little experience in the courts and by surfing the internet, think they are the most sharp in providing legal advice.  So, that it may be.

I attempt to give legal advice to the questions raised by you:

1.  In the DV Case and 125 cr.p.c. case, at the time of filing the interim application you were out of job.  But, later on you got job and at present you are in job, even though the job is not fetching you to survive yourself and your child.  If that be so, there is no option, but you must inform the court about from which date you have been in the job and what is the remuneration you have been getting out of this.  This will not spoil your case. You also put it clearly that this much of amount is not enough for you and the child to survive.  Further you have to assist the court to calculate your husband's income, which advocates generally never disclose. The court will grant you maintenance from the date of application till you got the job.  The matter does not end there.  Even after getting job also you will be entitled to maintenance, which may be reduced one depending upon the lifestyle of your husband and yourself, when marriage took place.  As you have a child, your husband has to pay maintenance for the child, irrespective of whether you got a job or not.

2.  In appeal filed by your husband, as per you, there is no stay.  If that is so, you are entitled to file the execution petition in the court where you were granted maintenance.  If you will not file execution, your husband will not pay any thing.  So, filing of execution  petition is important on your part, despite the pending appeal filed by husband, where he could not get any relief of stay.  Here, I say, generally in most of the cases, even issuing notice for appeal, the court directs the appellant (here your husband) to deposit half to three-fourth of the amount of maintenance availabe to the wife and then only take the appeal on record.  So, ask your advocate to request for the same.  Even though the request is belated, it is still effective. 

3.  Most importantly, what reliefs you asked in DV case?  Was it only maitenance or shared household, recovery of stridhan and the property  purchased by you but kept in the name of you both-husband and wife.  In DV case, you can ask for the recovery of this immovable property.   In addition to this, you should have thought over about filing the dowry case against him.  Dowry taking is offence but not dowry giving is, as per S. 7(3) of the dowry prohibition Act.  Coming to the purchase of the property, if you can prove that entire amount has gone from your side (it is not difficult to prove) it also proves that he is involved in dowry taking and also harassing you by retaining the property with him.  Where the property is situated?  Is it, at present, in his exlusive possession?

4.  Whatever  lawyers proclaim, the law runs on certain principles.  The lawyers may file false cases but they cannot turn false case into genuine case.  The role of lawyers is to assist the court and not to harass the clients - either their own clients or opposite counsel's clients.  So, do not worry that your husband being an advocate, can change the course of law.  What you need is a good advocate at Bombay as well as in Delhi.

5.  Section 156 (3) case cannot effect you till a summon is served  upon you.  Transfer of cases from Delhi to Bombay will not bring fruitful result as you are facing problem with your advocate in DV case in Bombay. 

You put patience and it will bring you fruitful results.  In Delhi, if you want any legal assistance, do not hesitate to ask me.

wish you best of luck. 

@Meena,

And then there are some advocates who have acquired experience by just 'being there' for years, and by doing 'settings' with everyone they can. They are not updated with new laws, they always fear of trying tactics which are perfectly valid by law, but they have not heard before (will strictly deny that "it does not happen" if they haven't heard of it. ) - but still always ready to loot innocent people of their money, even by destroying their family. That's why we had to come to rescue here. 

And whichever laws they read, many of them don't understand them properly themselves. 

For example, Adv. Chandu tells you "taking dowry is a crime but giving dowry is not according to Sec. 7(3)". HE IS PLAIN WRONG HERE. He does not understand Dowry Prohibition Act. You are educated, can read yourselves. Read Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act : https://wcd.nic.in/dowryprohibitionact.htm which says BOTH Giving and taking dowry are crime. Now Section 7(3) will ONLY SAVE YOU, who is the complainant(read yourselves, the best medicine). It will NOT save your family ( your father, mother) who gave dowry. MANY parents are fighting DPA Section 3 right now. Of course, they might be able to get it quashed FINALLY, but their long harassment will still happen, and that's what your husband wants doesn't he? 

Mr. Chandu also advises you to file a "Dowry case" on your husband, while not knowing that you have already filed IPC Sec. 498a on your husband. What legal advice can you expect from him then? 

Also note in the end what he says "if you need legal assistance in Delhi, contact him". As you can guess, many of them are just advertising here, with their miniscule knowledge which I have shown here. 

I again repeat, MOST of the advocates would not even blink their eyes for destroying families if they get their money - it is their job. Moral preaching is as much important as legal advice. 

So I repeat, it will never end. If you think your 498a/ DV cases are strong and you DO have strong evidences (or you can collect them in some time), then SURELY carry on with your case, and fight hard! Take loan if you want. But if not, even if you fight for 7-8 years, there will be no conviction of husband. Only wastage of money which you are already losing. Only your lawyer will benefit out of that, no one else. So if you don't have strong evidences against him, just try for mutual consented divorce. 

Thanks Agneepathji,

You are correct when you say that some advocates cannot keep up with the latest case law.  It is humanely impossible to keep update with every faculty of law, when case law is oozing out of the courts in large volumes.

But you are wrong when you condemn my statement that "dowry giving is not crime".  yes, I have fair idea about S.3 of D.P. Act and also S. 7(3) of the same Act.  When this Act was enacted in parliament, this issue of "whether giving dowry is an offence or not" had been thoroughly discussed.  The Lok Sabha held it should be an offence and passed the bill and the bill went to Rajya Sabha and there, the Rajya Sabha after thoroughly discussed this matter passed the bill by making amendment that "dowry giving shall not be an offence and it cannot be prosecuted".  Section 7(3) protection was given.  Then, the matter came back to Lok Sabha and Lok Sabha approved the amended Act.

Recently, Ms. Kamini Lau, a lower court judge while disposing S. 498 A case took the cognizance of the fact that wife paid dowry to her husband at the time of marriage and directed the police to register FIR against the wife and her parents.  That lady went to hon'ble High Court of Delhi and Justice Ajit Barihoke, after analysing S.3 as well as S.7(3) of the Act, held that dowry giving is not an offence and an FIR cannot be registered.  I am attaching the case for your ready reference.

You were trying to connect S.498-A with dowry giving offence.  I do not want to comment on each and every point you raised in your response, as these would not be beneficial to Ms. Meena.

have a nice day.

Shanti Shanti !!

Dear Chandu ji, 

I am very well aware of this judgement, trust me. The mistake in husband's complaint was the same, what I have already told above - that he included the wife in the accused. The 498a complainant is protected under section 7(3), but you should show me where you read that her parents are also protected. 

This is 7(3):

7(3). 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.

Now the person aggrieved (by dowry harassment) is only the complainant, the wife herself. Her statement cannot cause prosecution of herself. But it can cause prosecution of her parents. 

Thanks Shantanu, Agneepath, chandu and all for all your valuable suggestions and advice. I have actually got what i was looking out for. Will definitely get in touch again, for further advice or suggestion. Once again i than all of you for taking time and to support me in my case.

Agree with you Sir.

Moreover in same judgmente Justise Bharihoke says in Para 11 last sentence, (i am paraphrasing) protection under sec 7(3) is only to woman who is complaining but not to her parents but still went ahead and protected the parents of the woman which is to my eyes ultravires to to statute and blatantly contrary legislative intent as per Statement of Objects and Reasons.

Sir, How about then altering (via a PIL) the current Section 3 appropriately to refect that giving and abeting to give dowry is no crime just so made by Rahinton F Nariman in Hiral harsora Judgment by stricking down 'Adult male' words? The Statute cannot say punish Dowry Giver in Sec 3 and say protect Dowry giver in sec 7(3).

Either prosecute both parties for their respective acts per Sec 3 after granting the woman protection under Sec 7(3) or bring the Sec 3 in sync with protection granted in Sec 7(3) to parents of woman to... Both Can't stay in Statute as they are today, as it leads to perversity...