Quashing of 498 a

undoubtelly Mr.Kiran is an experienced and practicle person , keeping his discussions on the facts of the Law , but all of you will be shooked after listining the defination of compromose of the person to whome we are handeling , according to him as his daughter is earning , for which we are hardely concerened as the short span she spend with my brother she was not in job , and all the spendings were done by my brother on his own as he is also in a very good job , coming back to defination of compromise of his inlaws " as their daughter is earning and if my brother want patch up with her , he has to pay the expences of the merraige to girls father and then he can keep his wife with him , otherwise they will keep their process of harasement  countinue  agaiinst all of us ....... I think its a shameless and open example of taking advantage of the loose  points of the law ..... in which we need to pay the money and after that they want to pe chipku with us also .

…. And the saga continues! Don’t you realize the multitude of victimized grooms that are being coerced into extortion thanks to the ‘hidden costs’ relative to ‘compromise’? Undoubtedly, Kiran jee suggested the most expeditious, economical solution to this dilemma, viz. succumbing to extortion/blackmail, but if we show a lack of courage to challenge such crimes, they will continue on unabated. In effect we will also be functioning in the role of accessories as we continue to encourage this practice. This would undermine the sacrifices and tenacity already invested to eradicate this evil. There have been significant strides made in this direction as reflected in case law and internal instructional memos. of many police departments. It would be contrary to the interests of Justice to simply buckle over and take it timidly in the rear.

I would like to applaud the spirit of Carlise Collins for being honest, upright, and courageous, Go Girl!  Go!  Until the Male world understands that such legislations are not anti men but against the thought process which is objectionable. Even lot of Men are accepting that  its as simple as that .  

The persons who are  facing such kind of problum , for those its not as simple as ........... its unnesseary disturbance for peace of mind ....... nd if in our indian society if parents of a girl are asking money of merraige from boy in the shelter of law  ... i must say we should switch over to the thailand society model.

i never hit any person below the belt.

someone is here to seek some practical help and we are making jurisprudential discussions,, it is ridiculous.

Sir g, if u intend to wipe out corruption that can not be done making comments on web portals...go into public and do something.

what advice i gave was simply practical in nature.....m not here to make a ordinary man confused.

m well aware of what can be discussed or not.....a common man needs a solution.

its better for u people, if u r so sancrosanct, go into public and raise ur voice....if possible contest election, i ll vote for u :-)

but here i will confine myself to the practical advice only.

hope this discussion will stop here only.

Manasi Save: Hi! And Thanks for the encouragement! Firstly, let me elucidate the fact that I am very much a man - Last time I checked!! But there awakes my ‘inner b*tch’ when confronted with legal advice, which, in my opinion, sustains propensity to nullify our modest yet painstaking gains from filling cracks of opportunism in our courts! The entrepreneurship of “Compromising” has already established judicial precedent: extra judicial surrender without a fight! And, concurrently, it has nurtured a parasitic breed of judicially anointed opportunists. So, Enough is Enough! Why shouldn’t our advice reflect some nationalistic foresight? A one paragraph suggested solution to a complex, fiercely emotional situation that will have a life long effect, not just on the confused, insecure client but on all litigants as well as the community, is nothing but a myopic ‘quick fix’ that detracts even more from the public’s trust in our courts. One really doesn’t need a lawyer for that casual, ‘practical’ advice; a taxi driver would do just fine …. Professional advice should be synthesized from a thorough understanding of the issue at hand as well as the social dynamics influencing the client; his/her stance on peripheral issues, the preferred outcome, etc. And mainly, a determination whether sufficient admissible evidence exists to support the case! Advice should generate and sustain CHOICES and ALTERNATIVES that facilitate the client’s decision on what course is most beneficial for him/her to pursue. Then, if they still wish to compromise, it is the lawyer’s duty to attempt an ethical resolution devoid of the carrion feeding vultures obstructing the path to justice. By the way, on re-reading the TERMS OF SERVICE of Lawyersclubindia.com, I haven’t come across any rule/bylaw anywhere that “jurisprudential discussions” amongst us have no relevance to “practical advice”. There’s also nothing relative to suppressing and/or censoring a member’s opinion and impeding exchange of ideas (short of unprovoked offensive, libelous references to fellow members made in poor taste, e.g., ‘senseless’, ‘logically defunct person’, etc., etc.). But it’s comforting to know that, at least in spirit, my learned critic is in agreement with me since he promised me his precious vote! Fortunately, I lack the “required talent” to make it in politics! Thank God! ;-)

Good

Lot of discussions and comments. There are two sides of a coin. Mr. Kiran Kumar is only answering only as an advocate advising his client. This will be done naturally keeping in view the procedural aspects involved in a court of law. I do not think that it will be encouraging Blackmail or extortion. If a person wants peace, In world he has to purchase the same at his own expense and this is the way Mr. Kiran has advised. Instead of going for trial and move around courts it is basically advised that a compromise is always better. Corruption or malpracticies cannot be removed from the society by just communicating between like minded people. One has to enter the society and do the said service. One has to bring change in the people then only the society will change. 

Any how lot has beendiscussed on this score and Mr. Kiran and Collins let us go to some other topic to crack our heads.

Bye you all people

*** Legal Ethics is taught in Law Schools (if you remember) – BUT INTEGRITY EMANATES FROM WITHIN! Many possess it. Few practise it. ***

Thank  you Carlisle for raising the point about integrity. During the last nine years, after my return to mother country following twenty years spend abroad, I have paid out thousands of rupees as fees to to lawyers. I was never offered a receipt and I wonder whether these people ever pay any income tax. Their fees are always arbitrary, always on the basis of what the client can pay, never on the basis of time passed or the merits of the case.

 

My remarks are not meant to offend any particular person. I am sure honest lawyers with personal integrity, there are quite a few of them I am sure, will appreciate the truth of what I am saying. Lawyers, please search your hearts! And do not abandon your consicience!

Vishwa

 

Mr Viswa

Good quote. I like it. I am an advocate. When you pay the amount you have to insist for receipt. Wehn you go to a lawyer, you have to fix the fees. Just compare the income of a Doctor with that of an advocate.

If the Lawyer were to collect the fees as per the Fees rules, then it is better he close his chamber. For example at our place for an injunction suit the fees fixed is max. Rs. 500/-. This record will be with us for years together depending on the disposal. Is it Just. In such cases we can work out the terms of fees with the client. and as you said that should be reasonable. 

Your remark regard  Income tax should  be left to the  good sense of the person. If really everybody in India pays the income Tax as per the income he receives, should we face the  present crisis in all the fileds. Just think from that angle

Deeksh*tulu

 

 

 Dear Deeksh*thulu,

Thank you for your comments. The quote is not mine, it is from Mr Carlisle above in this thread. The fact that you are willing to engage in discussion about this sensitive topic is by itself is a very positive attitude.

Now for the fee structure, I cannot imagine that the lawyers are unable to get their fee structure revised in line with today's cost of living. They are always going on strike at the drop of a hat to protest against this or that. Remember the Chennai high court incident? If they are allowing the status quo to continue, it is really because it suits them very well to milk their clients for all they can grab!

Again, I reiterate that I am not setting out to attack anybody. Lawyers like anybody else have to earn their livelihoods, pay the rent, school fees and what not.  But unless all this is well organised, people will stop going to courts and start setling their disputes as best as they can. It is in this context that you have to view the prevalence of caste panchayats in many parts of the country that operate a parallel judiciary. Is this really in the interest of lawyers?

 

Vishwa

*

*

Allow me to jump in and buffer the familiar criticism on the business ethics of those who purport to represent the profession. I can come up with myriad reasons to validate the necessity of corrupt practices on a case by case basis which, in the final analysis, still reeks of stench as it always had! But, if I had done a fairly decent job of convincing myself on some far fetched justification for an intrinsically wrong and unconscionable act, then I will have painted it with respectability and my actions will then be considered noble, proper and acceptable – or, at least, done under some sort of (feigned) compulsion. In such manner Evil sneaks past us disguised as something allowable.

 Dear Carlisle,

“If the Lawyer were to collect the fees as per the Fees rules, then it is better he close his chamber.

Very well said! As it is there are too many of them clamouring for clients and undercutting one another. You can go to any court and you can see the lawyers lounging on plastic chairs with stacks of files on decaying cots in front of them, trying to look busy.

However, I feel that shady lawyers are the lesser evil. The real problem comes from crooked judges. I know personally of a few and can vouch that they exist and continue to thrive with the connivance of crooked politicians and rotten lawyers.

Vishwa

 

The italicized quote is from an opinion expressed by Respected V.S.R. Deeksh*tulu. I was expounding on the merit of such declarations that prompt one to circumvent regulatory expectations (e.g., Fees). It would be interesting to peek into the home life of these ‘stalwarts’ of the Law and assess their principles of child rearing at work.

My question was different ......... but the topic has goen to an another end ...........ny how i want to enter because of the reason to reply  the above statement ............first of all when Lawyers are telling us to file cases againest each other ..........when any Lawyer told someone to fight with another and register  A CASE ..........might be 1-2% people can be of this kind of nature but it everywhere and in every profession good and bad people are there........like software profession is also a respected profession ..... but hackers are there ..........because of few people we cannot blame to all of the community or group of professionals .........thats it

if anyone have more suggestions related to my question and matter please post ,

 

Thanks