Intellectual Property Rights: Practice and Drafting by Adv Gautam Matani. Register Now!
LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Rajesh Kumar (Advocate)     13 February 2009


A strange case (Judgment of High Court in Bail Application- Section 498A etc.) has come to my notice. It has shocked my concience and hence i am forced to expressed my views.

In this case the husband was granted interim bail for 30 days, and the court said that if he should stay with wife. If he doesnt stay with her, his has been asked to surrender after 30 days. Earlier his anticipatory bail application was rejected on the simple ground that he is not willing to stay with wife.

The court was very clear in saying that he should stay with wife, even when he has to leave his parents. And on these observation, the merits of his bail application was not even discussed, even though he is in custody for last 75 days.

I think that the judgment is not only perverse, it is outright subversion of law. Through powers of judicial descretion, the crminal court is trying to force a man to live with his wife (divorce petition is pending). What is court is saying that if he stays with wife, he is entitled to bail; otherwise not. The bail application is decided, not on the basis of criminal jurisprudence but on extraneous grounds. Further a man's right to stay separately from his wife is abrogated, without hearing him as to why he does not want to stay with his wife. The criminal court is restituting the conjugal right of wife, without her application and without hearing the husband on reasonable grounds to stay away. The judgment makes man a slave in marriage. And if he does not accept slavery, he is put in jail in the garb of criminal law.

Men must refuse to marry.

Marriage is a slavery for men. The Hon'ble HC judgment confirms that.  


 20 Replies

ARVIND JAIN (Advocate)     13 February 2009


ARVIND JAIN (Advocate)     13 February 2009



Rajesh Kumar (Advocate)     13 February 2009

Mr. Arvind- "ONE BAIL ORDER".

It is one life. It is faith of one person in judicial process. It that is destroyed, nothing will remain. Can we inflict injustice, merely because injustice is done only to one person.

Well, the fundamenatl issue is propriety of judicial process. Whatever be the personal conviction of judicial officer, rule of law has to be maintained. It is a bail application of one person- you decide it on merit, this way or that way. If personal conviction are coming in the way of discharging the judicial function, one should not decide.

The worst part of the order is threat- a threat that a person will languish in jail if he does not stay with the wife. This is putting the very person in terror of jail, and forcing him to decide whether he wants to stay with his wife or not under that terror.

It takes away the very voluntariness from the marriage. vary voluntariness from men. There are hundreds of judgment of various court which says that if the wife doesnt want to stay with husband, she cannot be forced into living with him. Why should men be denied this liberty. Is it because they are beast of burden in marriage?

If marriage (including continuation of marriage) is not a voluntary decision on the part of men, certainly it is a slavery of men.

N.K.Assumi (Advocate)     13 February 2009

Dear all,

It is very sad episode.If marriage is landed on the rock, certainly it is not only court but every right thingking people to try to patch up the broken marriage, but if the nupital chain breaks down to zero, ultimately the only solution is to provide them divorce as it is beyond the power of any one to unite the couple by force. What  our friend Rajeshji, pointed out on bail matter is really unfortunate, as the husband has to choose between the devil and the Deep Sea. I wish the court had not made such orders of bail. I do appreciate the concern shown by Arvindji,  towards the women tribe, but such sympathy and concern should not overtake the well establishe procedures of law. Rajeshji, better approach the High court for justice.

Ajay kumar singh (Advocate)     13 February 2009

No doubt some provisions of law like 498-A I.P.C, provosions of Dowry Prohibition Act,Domestic Violence Prohibition Act, S.C./ S.T. Act & such other Acts are being highly misused. The issue raised by Mr. Rajesh kumar is not one of gender inequality rather it purely an academic question in my view. There are certain legal norms for deciding a bail petition. Judicial descretion can not be arbitrary. One can not be forced to do something without considering the situation which compelled him not to do the same. I agree with Mr.Rajesh Kumar.

Rajesh Kumar (Advocate)     13 February 2009

We have deep faith in judiciary- and probably this is the only institution in our country which commands respect of people. Such judgment just shake that faith. I am sure justice will be done by the appellate forum.

K.C.Suresh (Advocate)     14 February 2009

I agree with Sri. Ajay. When talking about law a lawyer should not have gender equality feeling and sentiments. We handle law, pure and raw law.  The magistarte has committed an error. The remedy for a lawyer is to bring this to the upper court and try to get a releif if aggrived.

We must understand onething the judiciary is getting immatured, perverted and media holic. Not all but a few. but that few is sufficient to destroy the faith of common man in the only expetation of human beings-- the judiciary.

I congratulate Rajesh kumar for bringing this to our notice. We protest in this move for the only reason that it is not judicial.

N.K.Assumi (Advocate)     14 February 2009

Well said Sureshji!

Rekha..... ( Practicing lawyer(B.Com LL.M in Business law ))     14 February 2009

Indeed shocking and ridiculous judgement. It is is my humble request to Respected Rajeshji pl. hv a copy of this judgement and post it on the forum.


Rajesh Kumar (Advocate)     14 February 2009

I dont want to make the name of the Court or Judge or the petitioner public, as it will not be proper and hence I cannot post the judgment on forum. Nevertheless, I will write down the relevant portion of the judgment- It is 18 line judgment- I am quoting the relevant portion;

"Without going into the merits of the case, and in the believe that the petitioner shall go and take back the lady adn keep her with all respect and cordially with him even if he lives separately from his parents. The court direct his release fro a month from the date of his release. The petitioner shall have to appear before this court physically on expiry of the about period of grant of provisional bail alongwith the complainant, whereafter the court could be considering whether his bond could be directed to be confirmed or not. The petitioner (name) shall be released....................."


With due respect I want to submit that:

-There is no provision of provisional bail in criminal law.

-The petitioner is released on provisional bail without considering his application on merit, which is not legal.

-Petitioner application on merit is not being decided. It is a right of an accused that his application for bail should be decided on merit.

-The court is giving two option to the petitioner- live with enstranged wife or live in jail. This amounts to putting petitioner under terror of jail in deciding whether he wants to stay with his wife or not.

-The petitioners right to bail is made dependenat on the wishes of compalinant. This is illegal as much as it put the whole neutrality on crminal justice system in doubt.

-The court is directing the petitioner to live separately from his parents, if his estranged wife so desires. Thus a man is asked to choose his wife, if wife and parents cannot live together.

-The court is granting the wife restitution of conjugal rights without any application of wife for the same and without hearing the petitioner if he has any valid and reasonable ground to stay separately.

For these reasons I was shocked by the order.  

Rekha..... ( Practicing lawyer(B.Com LL.M in Business law ))     14 February 2009

Well..... thnks Respected Rajeshji for relevant portion of the said judgement.

Binod Kumar Mishra (Government Service)     22 February 2009

Mr. Rajesh jee is quite right in his opinion to this judgement. i am
also a victim of this law and still suffering from it. but my opinion
is in general and not as a victim. why the lady only given liberty to
file a false case, presurrise the husband to live together, take
sympathy of court. what will husband do. is this the meaning of woman
empowerment. is the women want empowerment to do such things. 
it has often listen that the hon'ble court has says that misuse of 498
is a legal terriorism and in number of cases defining the meaning of
cruelty and mental cruelty. but when it comes to court for hearing of
anticipatory bail application the same court says that whether husband
is ready to keep the lady with him or not. or if the saying of the
husband is no then his anticipatory bail petition will not be heard and
order passed against him. resulting loss of job and further humiliation
in the society. i have a number of instances where my colleageous and
friends had left their job by resgining from government service.


is this the liberty women want and the court are giving them. definately this is a quest to be think.


how sad it is to distort the order passed by the learned judge and go on baiting the women, in the name of criticising the judiciary objectively.  The judge no where said that husband should live with the wife.  It is undoubtedly a provisional bail.  But the judge "BELIEVES" that after getting the bail, husband shall go to wife. 

From centuries, women have been suffering.  The favourable provisions in some acts in favour of women are only due to this reason, in our holy country, we treat our women just like dirt.  We never treat them equal.  Now, in the areas, where women are economically empowered, they are ascertaining their rights and it is undigestable to us.  We shout at house tops that the misuse of Section 498-A, 3o4 B etc. etc. 

I ask a simple question.  In India, 50% of the population is women.  Then, why not 50% of the seats in Central and State Legislatures, women members were not there?  In judiciary, how much percentage of women have been the judges?

Go into any city bus and see how many women were there travelling in the bus?  In small towns and villages, whether the girls are in equal proportion to boys in the school students.

Why girl child is foeticided? (killed in the womb).  Whether any boy foeticide has happened?  Whether pregnant woman has been asked whether she would like to kill the life in her womb?

What are you talking Mr. Rajesh?  Any man has been burnt for not supporting the wife?  In India, thousands of instances are there of bride burning for bringing less dowry.

We are the advocates.  We should fight for the oppressed, suppressed and depressed.  If there are exceptions, do not blow them out of proportion and do further injustice to these downtrodden sections.  Not only our wives, but our mothers, sisters are also women.  Consider their plight coolly.

Earlier also, in the name of "healthy discussion" you spit enough of venom while discussing whether "men should marry?'.  I hope you see things impartically.


Rajesh Kumar (Advocate)     23 February 2009

Well Mr. Prabhakar, the judgment is being criticised not for the "believe", but for the threat. However, you may feel it is right, that is your outlook. Some persons may agree, some may not. I have given my reasons for criticism, you may give your reasons to support.

Regarding my views on the issue- it is plain and simple. I oppose the unjust laws. I oppose the unjust laws imposed on men. I oppose the injustice and i feel that injustice cannot be inflicted today on the basis of alleged injustice for centuries. I differ from you on facts also, which i will take some other times.

You have raised some intresting questions. I will answer through questions only. How many men burn their wives? How many men torture their wives for dowry? How many men indulge in foeticide? Then why do have have laws which treat men as criminal class? Why do we have laws which condemn men without hearing him?

let us take this case. How many men wants to wreck their marriage? Then why do law think that men is responsible for wreking the marriage? Such generalisation is injustice. And let me add one more thing- more and more men are thinking the way I think, and it is not good for the society. Every such abuse of laws create hundred men who thinks that way. Society must stop abuse of these laws otherwise the result will not be very good.

One very important issue you have raised about reservation. Again i will answer in your logic only. Illiterates are being exploited for centuries. They have always been exploited by educated people. Therefore, we need illeterate persons in civil services. 80% of the persons in Inida is illeterate or semi leterate. Therefore, 80% seats in civil services should be reserved for them. Further, law has been tool to exploit illeterates by literates. Therefore, such reservation must be extended to legal profession too.

And Mr. Prabhakar, if by any chance any political party can polarise people on the division of literates/illiterates; such demand will be made. And, politically enlightened people will accept the demand as a tool of social empowerment of illiterates.

I see democracy as a compromise between reason and numbers. Reason is important for development, numbers are required for stability. We want development, with stability. That is what democracy is all about. And may be it is good also.

But as Advocate, I am not a politician. Had I been a politician, i could have thought about numbers. I am an advocate, whose primary duty in the society is to uphold reason. That is what I do. To uphold reason. Even at the cost of being politically incorrect.

Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register