What steps should be taken by the complainant to prove the c

@Parbhakar (M) 9958670740 -  "In the complaint it has to be mentioned that during his RCR/divorce case pending proceedings  also,  the complainant tried for reunion and now she came to conclusion that he would not allow her to join and hence this complaint, with a last hope that this authority may prevail upon him for reunion and failing which, FIR may be lodged."

How would the complainant prove that she tried for reunion during RCR? What steps / efforts she took / made for saving the marriage? Let us clarify these points to the complainant also.

WHY DID SHE NOT FILE IT THEN? WAT IS LINK OF DIVORCE TO 498A. BOTH ARE SEPARATE ISSUES.

PARBHAKAR SIR

FOR HOW LONG AFTER SEPARATION CAN SHE BE ALLOWED TO FILE 498A?

PLEASE ALSO READ THIS.

Family Law > SUPREME COURT CONDEMNS MISUSE OF 498A     

PLEASE ALSO READ

Family Law > Good or Bad Motives of 498 A    

PLEASE ALSO READ

Family Law > How to save my child(5 yr.) ??????    

@Mr. Cool,

she mentions that she put efforts for reunion after his filing of RCR/divorce.  If this fact comes either in FIR and / or in Section 161 statements, the defence counsel certainly ask her about the details in the cross examination and she will reply there.  If he does not ask questions, the complainant / prosecution will take the benefit.  In my next part, I deal with the question of how questions would be framed by defence advocate and how the complainant has to respond.

@ Tortured _Atma,

Why did not file Section 498-A earlier to divorce? That is your question.  It is not tactics, which case has to be filed first.  If the wife has got a wish to live with him or hope to live with him, she should not file Section 498-A case against the accused for the reason, that the chance of reunion (even one per cent) will vanish.  Hence, my suggestion is once, she decides that there is no scope and hope to live with him, then only she has to file Section 498-A case.

Regarding second question.  As per Cr.P.C., the time period to file Section 498-A case is 3 years from the date of last offence.  But the Courts have been holding that the cruel acts of such nature have continuous in nature and hence, limitation provision shall not apply.  But delayed FIR has got its adversities. 

Kindly read - "Mr. Tortured_Atma".  Sorry for lapse.

Family Law > Wife started torture on my family     

@ Arup ji

what are these references point to means I have read these links but what exactly you are hinting under this title post ?

@Parbhakar (M) 9958670740 -  "she mentions that she put efforts for reunion after his filing of RCR/divorce.  If this fact comes either in FIR and / or in Section 161 statements, the defence counsel certainly ask her about the details in the cross examination and she will reply there.  If he does not ask questions, the complainant / prosecution will take the benefit.  In my next part, I deal with the question of how questions would be framed by defence advocate and how the complainant has to respond."

If the 498A case is genuine, then what is the need for you to deal with the questions here? The complainant knows better on how to answer the questions on her own, if she has gone through a certain phase. Does this not mean that you are training the 498A terrorists in such an open public forum?

@Parbhakar (M) 9958670740 -  "As per Cr.P.C., the time period to file Section 498-A case is 3 years from the date of last offence.  But the Courts have been holding that the cruel acts of such nature have continuous in nature and hence, limitation provision shall not apply.  But delayed FIR has got its adversities. "

I beg to differ from you on this. Please go through the following judgements:

Case 1

CASE NO.: Appeal (Crl.) 904 of 2004

PETITIONER: Y. Abraham Ajith & Ors.

RESPONDENT: Inspector of Police, Chennai & Anr.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 17/08/2004

BENCH: ARIJIT PASAYAT & C.K. THAKKER

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T (Arising out of SLP(Crl.)No. 4573/2003)

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

Case 2

Manish Ratan & Ors. VS. State Of M.P. & Anr.

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 210 of 2000

PETITIONER: Manish Ratan & Ors.

RESPONDENT: State of M.P. & Anr.

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/11/2006

BENCH: S.B. Sinha & Markandey Katju

S.B. Sinha & Markandey Katju

S.B. SINHA, J :

The definition of a continuing offence is given in the In State of Bihar v. Deokaran Nenshi and Another [(1972) 2 SCC 890]

very good mr cool.

such type of answer expected which extend the limit of our knowledge.

"mean that you are training the 498A terrorists in such an open public forum"

exactly. i also want to say this

ARUN JI,

IT IS THE STYLE I BORROWED FROM MR ASUTOSH.

I PUT ONLY 4/5 REFERENCES WHICH WAS AVAILABLE AT THE FIRST PAGE OF FAMILY LAW ON THAT TIME.

THE 'FAMILY LAW' & THE 'CRIMINAL' SECTION FULL OF SUCH CRY.

I DO NOT KNOW HOW MUCH SENSITIVE IS MR PRABHAKAR'S HEART.

HE WORKING LIKE A TEACHER OF THE 498A TERARIST.

….aaho………… here is another English teacher.

By Mr Prabhakar,

“On 6^th May, 2008 at about 6.00 P.M. my husband came back from office and sat on the sofa in the sitting room.   At that time, my father-in-law and mother in law were sitting on other sofa and were watching the T.V.  My husband asked me to serve him a cup of tea.  I prepared it and took it to him.  After having a single sip, he threw the entire tea on my face, shouting “where is the sugar in the tea?  You are becoming lazy day by day, you do nothing except to eat away my money and keep your entire salary in your bank account”.  My face has burnt due to pouring of hot tea.

My younger sister, who came on that evening to meet me, immediately rushed to bathroom and brought “burnal” and applied the same on my face”.

By Mr. Ashutosh

“On 6^th May, 2008 at about 6.00 P.M. (or one may say in the evening), my husband threw hot tea on my face, and shouted “where is the sugar in the tea?  You are becoming lazy day by day, you do nothing except to eat away my money and keep your entire salary in your bank account”.  Due to this my face got burnt, which caused a great pain to me.”

Mr Asutosh,

Very good pricy. You have got 8 out of 10 in English. You missed the following two main points.

1) My father-in-law and mother in law were sitting…

2) My younger sister, who came on that evening …..

You have got 0 out of 10 in law, because you kept the witness, i.e. father-in-law; mother in law & younger sister, out of court.