Men Rights India

Men Rights, Man Sense!

  • Contact
  • Bare Acts
    • IPC 498A bare act
    • CrPC 125 Bare Act
    • The Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – bare act
    • Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Bare Act
  • 498a
    • 498a Tips
    • 498a Info
    • 498a Judgments
  • DV Act
    • DV Act Tips
    • DV Act Info
    • DV Act Judgments
  • Maintenance
    • Maintenance CrPC 125 Judgments
    • Maintenance HMA 24 Judgments
  • Child Custody
    • Child Custody Visitation Judgments
    • Child Custody Visitation News
  • Misc
    • Divorce Judgments
    • Law Misuse
    • Marriage
    • Misandry
    • Sexual Harassment
    • Important Posts
You are here: Home » Marriage » Wife’s attempt to separate husband’s parents, suicide attempt, unfounded allegation of extra-marital affair considered mental cruelty on husband for divorce – Supreme court judgment

Wife’s attempt to separate husband’s parents, suicide attempt, unfounded allegation of extra-marital affair considered mental cruelty on husband for divorce – Supreme court judgment

9 Oct 2016 By videv 3 Comments

News about this Supreme Court judgment have started appearing in many newspapers with the headlines which like “forcing husband to separate from his parents” or “forcing Hindu son to separate from parents” amounts to cruelty, and so on.  As it happens, news headlines may a time don’t reflect the full picture of logic inside a judgment, and sometimes news reports may even highlight a secondary part of the judgment as the main reason when in fact the judgment was based mainly on other factors.

This site contains very few judgments on topic of divorce, and the reasons are explained in detail in this and this post.  The reason of covering this judgment here are that people shouldn’t get complacent that one judgment (though important one given that it’s by SC) about separating-husband’s-parents-is-cruelty can get them divorce.  That is so because wife trying to separate husband’s parents is almost a 100% phenomenon reported to men’s rights activists by ‘victim’ husbands, and more details can be read on this site’s comments by readers, as well as in this mega-post.  If husbands could get divorce based on that fact, then many would have gotten it, rather than running around in courts handling multiple cases.  In fact, all the so called counsellors at CAW cell, various mahila-thana and allied entities, and mediators in courts routinely consider the separating parents from husband to be a very reasonable and almost desirable demand on behalf of wife, and won’t bat an eyelid before asking husband: “Why can’t you take a separate house”, or “you have to satisfy your wife’s demands as part of compromise”.  Once a husband agrees to living separately from parents, raising this issue as part of divorce petition won’t help or will be an uphill task to prove cruelty.  This logic almost missed by many people, and lawyers don’t inform about it either. The problem is that any action in matrimonial case by either party can be taken to be an act of condoning or acceptance, and so once a husband starts living separately from his parents to satisfy wife, it may get taken to be a sign of acceptance that there were some problems in household because of everyone under the same roof. Whether it was wife’s fault or not has to be proven based on evidence, and evidence is another thing that most husbands don’t bother to collect or keep.

Rather than covering divorce judgments on this site, I instead wrote a whole book on topic of divorce (for men), because guiding on divorce has moral issues, turns out to be personalized baby-sitting rather than social work, and moreover I doubt there is any easy way to understand about this complex topic based on reading few news reports or even 1-2 judgments.  Even if a husband has been going through extreme forms of cruelty at the hands of wife — not understanding basics of law, importance of evidence, importance of preparing detailed filings, the psychology of family court judges, lawyers, mediators etc makes the chance of getting a divorce by husband very remote.  Lack of patience is another problem and because of these reasons most of the husbands are steered easily towards the C-word based settlement by the divorce lawyers and mediators.

In the divorce book, many judgments are there where divorce to husband has been granted based on any or combination of these: wife’s suicide threats, false criminal cases/complaints filed on husband (proven false and malicious), and false allegations of adultery on husband.  There is already another judgment by Mumbai HC on this site which has allowed divorce to husband considering wife’s demand to live separately from husband’s parents to be cruelty.  I have already covered important points in that post like duration of running divorce case, before divorce gets granted to any party.  Same seems to be the case in this judgment too, grant of divorce after spending many years in courts.

Another thing seen in matrimonial cases is like this: family court makes one judgment, high court reverses it completely, and then supreme court reverses high court’s order and holds family court’s judgment to be right.  Can’t say whether this is influenced by have-to-grant-relief-by-exercising-my-court’s-powers belief in mind of judges, but there is a suspicion that this is a subconscious reason behind such judgments.

Below are the 3 main reasons based on which both family court, Bangalore and SC deemed that it was mental cruelty on husband.

1. Suicide attempt by wife itself was seen as reason enough to be deemed mental cruelty on its own.

2.  Wife asking husband not to spend any money on his parents and trying to separate him from parents was additional reason.

3.  Wife’s false allegations on husband of extra-marital affair with maid was deemed as third reason.

 

To my knowledge, reasons 1 and 3 are often found in divorce decrees granted in favour of husbands, while reason 2 is not seen that often except in few like Mumbai HC judgment linked earlier.

Attempt to separate parents from husband deemed mental cruelty

Let’s consider a salient part of judgment which in fact is just the opposite of what is seen in CAW cell, mediations, counselling, panchayats, samaj ki baithak these days.  In those instances, it’s almost always pressure is put on husband to take a separate house, if wife demands it and is able to make some allegations on his parents.  No one knows the truth behind wife’s allegations, husband doesn’t have evidence in his favour (and doesn’t care to collect either most of the time), and so the decision is made to satisfy the wife’s demand and take a separate house.  Maybe in this case, wife did not make those allegations and did not make use of ‘women-empowerment’  and divorce-negotiation laws like Domestic Violence Act which did not exist at the time the cases were filed.

As stated hereinabove, in a Hindu society, it is a pious obligation of the son to maintain the parents.   If a wife makes an attempt to deviate from the normal practice and normal custom of the society, she must have some justifiable reason for that and in this case, we do not find any justifiable reason, except monetary consideration of the Respondent wife.  In our opinion, normally, no husband would tolerate this and no son would like to be separated from his old parents and other family members, who are also dependent upon his income.  The persistent effort of the Respondent wife to constrain the Appellant to be separated from the family would be torturous for the husband and in our opinion, the trial Court was right when it came to the conclusion that this constitutes an act of ‘cruelty’.

In this case, most probably the husband did not flinch from his obligations to parents, and had he done so he would not have been able to use this as a ground.

Conclusion

1. Given this judgment is by a Supreme Court bench, deeming the act to separate husband from parents as cruelty should carry weight from now onwards and it sets a precedent in whole of India.

2. One should always have evidence (that wife tried to separate parents) to prove one’s assertion, and in my opinion, taking a separate residence even once as per a compromise with wife will dilute severely the potency of using wife-tried-to-separate-me-from-parents as a mental cruelty ground later in a divorce petition.  Since most husbands indeed start living separately as a compromise, their divorce petition later won’t be able to get much benefit from this judgment.

3. The usual point of having to spend many years in courts still stays.  Don’t file divorce unless that seems a better option than the worst of all other options.

This judgment will lead to more enquiries by hopeful husbands (and their parents) from divorce lawyers, but in the end proving mental cruelty is an uphill task.

Disclaimer: I’m not a lawyer, and your divorce, just like your marriage, should be your own affair.  Don’t enquire or call about how to get divorce.


Full judgment text below


 

                                                          REPORTABLE
                      IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 

                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

 

                         CIVIL APPEAL NO.3253 OF 2008

 

NARENDRA                                           … APPELLANT

                  VERSUS

 

K. MEENA                                         … RESPONDENT

 

                                     J U D G M E N T

 

ANIL R. DAVE, J.         

 

1.     This appeal has been filed by the Appellant husband, whose

decree for divorce passed by the trial Court has been set aside by the

impugned judgment dated 8th  March, 2006 passed by the High Court

of Karnataka at Bangalore in Miscellaneous First Appeal No.171 of

2002 (FC).

 

  2. The facts giving rise to the present appeal, in a nutshell, are as

under :

 

       The Respondent wife filed Miscellaneous First Appeal under

Section 28(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to

as “the Act”) before the High Court as she was aggrieved by the

 

                                                2

judgment and decree dated 17th  November, 2001, passed by the

Principal Judge, Family Court, Bangalore in M.C. No.603 of 1995

under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act filed by the Appellant husband

seeking divorce.

 

3.     The Appellant husband had married the Respondent wife on 26th

February, 1992.  Out of the wedlock, a female child named Ranjitha

was born on 13th  November, 1993.  The case of the Appellant was that
                         
the Respondent did not live happily with the Appellant even for a

month after the marriage.  The reason for filing the divorce petition

was that the Respondent wife had become cruel because of her highly

suspicious nature and she used to level absolutely frivolous but

 

serious allegations against him regarding his character and more

particularly about his extra-marital relationship.  Behaviour of the

Respondent wife made life of the Appellant husband miserable and it

became impossible for the Appellant to stay with the Respondent for

the aforestated reasons.   Moreover, the Respondent wanted the

Appellant to leave his parents and other family members and to get

separated from them so that the Respondent can live independently;

and in that event it would become more torturous for the Appellant to

stay only with the Respondent wife with her such nature and

behaviour. The main ground was cruelty, as serious allegations were

                                                3

levelled about the moral character of the Appellant to the effect that he

was having an extra-marital affair with a maid, named Kamla.

Another important allegation was that the Respondent would very

often threaten the Appellant that she would commit suicide.  In fact,

on 2th  July, 1995, she picked up a quarrel with the Appellant, went to

the bathroom, locked the door from inside and poured kerosene on her

body and attempted to commit suicide.  On getting smell of kerosene

                         
coming from the bathroom, the Appellant, his elder brother and some

of the neighbours broke open the door of the bathroom and prevented

the Respondent wife from committing suicide.  The aforestated facts

 

were found to be sufficient by the learned Family Court for granting

the Appellant a decree of divorce dated 17th  November, 2001, after

considering the evidence adduced by both the parties.

 

4.     Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree of divorce dated 17th

November, 2001, the Respondent wife had filed Miscellaneous First

Appeal No.171 of 2002 (FC), which has been allowed by the High

Court on 8th  March, 2006, whereby the decree of divorce dated 17th

November, 2001 has been set aside.  Being aggrieved by the judgment

and order passed by the High Court, the Appellant has filed this

appeal.

 

5.     The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent was not

                                                4

present when the appeal was called out for hearing.  The matter was

kept back but for the whole day, the learned counsel for the

Respondent did not appear.   Even on an earlier occasion on 31st

March, 2016, when the appeal was called out, the learned counsel

appearing for the Respondent wife was not present and therefore, the

Court had heard the learned counsel appearing for the Appellant.

 

6.     The learned counsel appearing for the Appellant submitted that
                         
the High Court had committed a grave error in the process of

re-appreciating the evidence and by setting aside the decree of divorce

granted in favour of the Appellant.  He submitted that there was no

reason to believe that there was no cruelty on the part of the

 

Respondent wife.  He highlighted the observations made by the Family

Court and took us through the evidence, which was recorded before

the Family Court.  He drew our attention to the depositions made by

independent witnesses, neighbours of the Appellant, who had rescued

the Respondent wife from committing suicide by breaking open the

door of the bathroom when the Respondent was on the verge of

committing suicide by pouring kerosene on herself and by lighting a

match stick.  Our attention was also drawn to the fact that serious

allegations levelled against the character of the Appellant in relation to

an extra-marital affair with a maid were absolutely baseless as no

                                                5

maid named Kamla had ever worked in the house of the Appellant.  It

was also stated that the Respondent wife was insisting the Appellant

to get separated from his family members and on 12th  July, 1995 i.e.

the date of the attempt to commit suicide, the Respondent wife

deserted the Appellant husband.  According to the learned counsel,

the facts recorded by the learned Family Court after appreciating the

evidence were sufficient to show that the Appellant was entitled to a

                         
decree of divorce as per the provisions of Section 13(1)(ia) of the Act.

 

7.     We have carefully gone through the evidence adduced by the

parties before the trial Court and we tried to find out as to why the

appellate Court had taken a different view than the one taken by the

 

Family Court i.e. the trial Court.

8.     The High Court came to the conclusion that there was no cruelty

meted out to the Appellant, which would enable him to get a decree of

 

divorce, as per the provisions of the Act.  The allegations with regard

to the character of the Appellant and the extra-marital affair with a

maid were taken very seriously by the Family Court, but the High

Court did not give much importance to the false allegations made.

The constant persuasion by the Respondent for getting separated from

the family members of the Appellant and constraining the Appellant to

live separately and only with her was also not considered to be of any

                                                6

importance by the High Court.   No importance was given to the

incident with regard to an attempt to commit suicide made by the

Respondent wife.  On the contrary, it appears that the High Court

found some justification in the request made by the Respondent to live

separately from the family of the Appellant husband.  According to the

High Court, the trial Court did not appreciate the evidence properly.

For the aforestated reasons, the High Court reversed the findings

                         
arrived at by the learned Family Court and set aside the decree of

divorce.

 

9.     We do not agree with the manner in which the High Court has

re-appreciated the evidence and has come to a different conclusion.

 

10. With regard to the allegations of cruelty levelled by the Appellant,

we are in agreement with the findings of the trial Court.  First of all, let

us look at the incident with regard to an attempt to commit suicide by

 

the Respondent.  Upon perusal of the evidence of the witnesses, the

findings arrived at by the trial Court to the effect that the Respondent

wife had locked herself in the bathroom and had poured kerosene on

herself so as to commit suicide, are not in dispute.  Fortunately for the

Appellant, because of the noise and disturbance, even the neighbours

of the Appellant rushed to help and the door of the bathroom was

broken open and the Respondent was saved.  Had she been successful

                                                7

in   her   attempt   to   commit  suicide,   then   one   can   foresee   the

consequences and the plight of the Appellant because in that event the

Appellant would have been put to immense difficulties because of the

legal provisions.  We feel that there was no fault on the part of the

Appellant nor was there any reason for the Respondent wife to make

an attempt to commit suicide.  No husband would ever be comfortable

with or tolerate such an act by his wife and if the wife succeeds in

                         
committing suicide, then one can imagine how a poor husband would

get entangled into the clutches of law, which would virtually ruin his

sanity, peace of mind, career and probably his entire life.  The mere

 

idea with regard to facing legal consequences would put a husband

under tremendous stress.  The thought itself is distressing.  Such a

mental cruelty could not have been taken lightly by the High Court. In

our opinion, only this one event was sufficient for the Appellant

husband to get a decree of divorce on the ground of cruelty.  It is

needless to add that such threats or acts constitute cruelty.  Our

aforesaid view is fortified by a decision of this Court in the case of

Pankaj Mahajan v. Dimple @ Kajal (2011) 12 SCC 1, wherein it has

 

been held that giving repeated threats to commit suicide amounts to

cruelty.

11. The Respondent wife wanted the Appellant to get separated from

                                                8

his family.   The evidence shows that the family was virtually

maintained from the income of the Appellant husband. It is not a

common practice or desirable culture for a Hindu son in India to get

separated from the parents upon getting married at the instance of the

wife, especially when the son is the only earning member in the family.

A son, brought up and given education by his parents, has a moral

and legal obligation to take care and maintain the parents, when they

                         
become old and when they have either no income or have a meagre

income.  In India, generally people do not subscribe to the western

thought, where, upon getting married or attaining majority, the son

 

gets separated from the family.  In normal circumstances, a wife is

expected to be with the family of the husband after the marriage.  She

becomes integral to and forms part of the family of the husband and

normally without any justifiable strong reason, she would never insist

that her husband should get separated from the family and live only

with her.  In the instant case, upon appreciation of the evidence, the

trial   Court   came   to   the   conclusion   that   merely   for   monetary

 

considerations, the Respondent wife wanted to get her husband

separated from his family.  The averment of the Respondent was to the

effect that the income of the Appellant was also spent for maintaining

his family.   The said grievance of the Respondent is absolutely

unjustified.  A son maintaining his parents is absolutely normal in

                                                9

Indian culture and ethos.  There is no other reason for which the

Respondent wanted the Appellant to be separated from the family – the

sole reason was to enjoy the income of the Appellant.  Unfortunately,

the High Court considered this to be a justifiable reason. In the

opinion of the High Court, the wife had a legitimate expectation to see

that the income of her husband is used for her and not for the family

members of the Respondent husband.  We do not see any reason to

                         
justify the said view of the High Court.  As stated hereinabove, in a

Hindu society, it is a pious obligation of the son to maintain the

parents.   If a wife makes an attempt to deviate from the normal

 

practice and normal custom of the society, she must have some

justifiable reason for that and in this case, we do not find any

justifiable reason, except monetary consideration of the Respondent

wife.  In our opinion, normally, no husband would tolerate this and no

son would like to be separated from his old parents and other family

members, who are also dependent upon his income.  The persistent

effort of the Respondent wife to constrain the Appellant to be

 

separated from the family would be torturous for the husband and in

our opinion, the trial Court was right when it came to the conclusion

that this constitutes an act of ‘cruelty’.

12. With regard to the allegations about an extra-marital affair with

                                               10

maid named Kamla, the re-appreciation of the evidence by the High

Court does not appear to be correct.  There is sufficient evidence to the

effect that there was no maid named Kamla working at the residence

of the Appellant.  Some averment with regard to some relative has

been relied upon by the High Court to come to a conclusion that there

was a lady named Kamla but the High Court has ignored the fact that

the Respondent wife had levelled allegations with regard to an

                         
extra-marital affair of the Appellant with the maid and not with

someone else.  Even if there was some relative named Kamla, who

might have visited the Appellant, there is nothing to substantiate the

 

allegations levelled by the Respondent with regard to an extra-marital

affair.  True, it is very difficult to establish such allegations but at the

same time, it is equally true that to suffer an allegation pertaining to

one’s character of having an extra-marital affair is quite torturous for

any person – be it a husband or a wife.  We have carefully gone

through the evidence but we could not find any reliable evidence to

show that the Appellant had an extra-marital affair with someone.

 

Except for the baseless and reckless allegations, there is not even the

slightest evidence that would suggest that there was something like an

affair of the Appellant with the maid named by the Respondent.  We

consider levelling of absolutely false allegations and that too, with

regard to an extra-marital life to be quite serious and that can surely

                                               11

be a cause for metal cruelty.

13. This Court, in the case of               Vijaykumar Ramchandra Bhate v.

Neela Vijaykumar Bhate, 2003 (6) SCC 334 has held as under:-

 

       “7.   The question that requires to be answered first is as to
       whether   the   averments,   accusations   and   character
       assassination of the wife by the appellant husband in the
       written statement constitutes mental cruelty for sustaining
       the claim for divorce under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Act. The
       position of law in this regard has come to be well settled
       and   declared   that   levelling   disgusting   accusations   of
                         
       unchastity and indecent familiarity with a person outside
       wedlock and allegations of extramarital relationship is a
       grave assault on the character, honour, reputation, status
       as well as the health of the wife. Such aspersions of
       perfidiousness attributed to the wife, viewed in the context
       of an educated Indian wife and judged by Indian conditions
       and standards would amount to worst form of insult and
       cruelty, sufficient by itself to substantiate cruelty in law,
       warranting the claim of the wife being allowed. That such
       allegations made in the written statement or suggested in

       the course of examination and by way of cross-examination
       satisfy the requirement of law has also come to be firmly
       laid down by this Court. On going through the relevant
       portions of such allegations, we find that no exception could
       be taken to the findings recorded by the Family Court as
       well as the High Court. We find that they are of such
       quality, magnitude and consequence as to cause mental
       pain, agony and suffering amounting to the reformulated
       concept of cruelty in matrimonial law causing profound and
       lasting disruption and driving the wife to feel deeply hurt
       and reasonably apprehend that it would be dangerous for
       her to live with a husband who was taunting her like that
       and   rendered   the   maintenance   of   matrimonial   home
       impossible.”

 

14. Applying the said ratio to the facts of this case, we are inclined to

hold that the unsubstantiated allegations levelled by the Respondent

                                               12

wife and the threats and attempt to commit suicide by her amounted

to mental cruelty and therefore, the marriage deserves to be dissolved

by a decree of divorce on the ground stated in Section 13(1)(ia) of the

Act.

 

15. Taking an overall view of the entire evidence and the judgment

delivered by the trial Court, we firmly believe that there was no need to

take a different view than the one taken by the trial Court.  The
                         
behaviour of the Respondent wife appears to be terrifying and horrible.

One would find it difficult to live with such a person with tranquility

and peace of mind.  Such torture would adversely affect the life of the

husband.  It is also not in dispute that the Respondent wife had left

 

the matrimonial house on 12th  July, 1995 i.e. more than 20 years

back.  Though not on record, the learned counsel submitted that till

today, the Respondent wife is not staying with the Appellant.  The

daughter of the Appellant and Respondent has also grown up and

according to the learned counsel, she is working in an IT company.

We have no reason to disbelieve the aforestated facts because with the

passage of time, the daughter must have grown up and the separation

of the Appellant and the wife must have also become normal for her

and therefore, at this juncture it would not be proper to bring them

together, especially when the Appellant husband was treated so

                                               13

cruelly by the Respondent wife.

16. We, therefore, quash and set aside the impugned judgment

delivered by the High Court.   The decree of divorce dated 17th

 

November, 2001 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court,

Bangalore in M.C. No.603 of 1995 is hereby restored.

 

17. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed with no order as to costs.

                         

                                                   .…………………………….J.
                                                   (ANIL R. DAVE)

 

 

                                                   ……………………………..J.
                                                   (L. NAGESWARA RAO)
NEW DELHI
OCTOBER 06, 2016.

 

 

                                               14

ITEM NO.1A               COURT NO.2               SECTION IVA
(For Judgment)

               S U P R E M E  C O U R T  O F  I N D I A
                       RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Civil Appeal  No(s).  3253/2008

NARENDRA                                           Appellant(s)

                                VERSUS

K.MEENA                                            Respondent(s)

 

Date : 06/10/2016           This appeal was called on for
                         
                            pronouncement of judgment.

For Appellant(s)            Mr. H.K. Naik,Adv.
                            Mr. B. Vishwanath Bhandarkar,Adv.
                            Mr. V.N. Raghupathy,AOR

For Respondent(s)           Ms. Kamakshi S. Mehlwal,AOR

 

       Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil R. Dave pronounced the judgment

of the Bench comprising His Lordship and Hon’ble Mr. Justice

L. Nageswara Rao.
       The appeal is allowed in terms of the signed judgment.

 

  (NARENDRA PRASAD)                             (SNEH BALA MEHRA)
    COURT MASTER                                ASSISTANT REGISTRAR

       (Signed ‘Reportable’ Judgment is placed on the file)

Links to Free eBooks

1. Download my free PDF eBook Surviving the Legal Jungle

2. Read this FREE eBook written by fathers involved in child custody issues (Read Online)(PDF book)

Links to Paid eBooks

1. How to Fight and Reduce Maintenance under CrPC 125 and DV Act.(Kindle eBook version)

2. How to Fight and Reduce Maintenance under CrPC 125 and DV Act (Print Paperback)

3. Self-study Book on Divorce for Men (Kindle Only)

4. Alimony and Maintenance under Hindu Law (Kindle)

5. Alimony and Maintenance under Hindu Law (Print Paperback)

Related Posts

  1. Another ‘glorious’ statement by another SC judge
  2. Divorce granted by foreign courts is valid in India
  3. Only SC can waive 6 months off mutual divorce, and grant irretrievable breakdown divorce
  4. Lack of legal wedding no bar for ‘live-in’ woman to claim property rights after ‘husband’s’ death

Filed Under: Marriage Tagged With: Divorce, SC Judgment

Comments

  1. Sunil says

    June 15, 2017 at 2:47 pm

    My mother’s been dead and my wife is pestering me for the will and her gold and other possession and she is pestering me everyday and has been mentally harassing me and my dad to get the will done and have it given to her. She also has a horrible habit to be suspisicous about me for every move I make. If I get a phone call from a Bank, a collegue, an ex college mate she to know. If I have to even close my room for an office call/tele meeting, she has a doubt on me.
    I have been tolerating this for 7 years now. Please help me in getting rid of this women. I have a daughter who is 5 and this menial torture has been affecting her as well

    Reply
    • videv says

      June 16, 2017 at 11:34 am

      >> Please help me in getting rid of this women

      That will have to be your own effort.

      >>I have a daughter who is 5 and this menial torture has been affecting her as well

      My guess you have max 2-3 years before wife will go for the ‘kill’, or maybe she is already entered that phase now that kid has grown to 5 years. Read the free eBook on child custody.

      Reply
  2. SASANKA MISHRA says

    May 5, 2017 at 11:07 am

    Happy to find a flavor of Hinduism in the Hindu Marriage Act.

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Call Men Rights India numbers For 498A/406/Dowry Case/DV/Maintenance/child custody-visitation/abusive-wife/false cases, CALL volunteers' phone lines (for quick guidance only):
(Be respectful to volunteers, & we don't advise on divorce)

1. Kannada/Hindi/English: +919738010456
2. Tamil/English: +919962514226

Join our WhatsApp/Facebook groups for FREE guidance/discussion

Join Our Telegram Channel for FREE updates

Social

Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
Instagram

Search this website

Important/Must Read/Permanent Posts

  • How to assess your false case and marriage breakup probability
  • How to take action against police or magistrate for 498A arrest without following CrPC 41 41A?
  • Why Indian men should be very careful in filing divorce
  • What to do if CAW cell/police/advocate is putting pressure to compromise
  • Innocent until proven guilty is the law, use it!
  • Advice to men on 498a, maintenance, DV, divorce, child custody, what else
  • How to find and manage your lawyer in 498a, DV, CrPC 125, divorce, RCR cases
  • How to fight false cases of DV, Maintenance, CrPC 125, 498a etc
  • How to assess maintenance amount likely to be ordered in CrPC 125 or HMA 24
  • Notes and questions on court procedures
  • What should be my stand in court?
  • Understanding the divorce industry in India

Book: How to Fight and Reduce Maintenance under CrPC 125 and DV Act


Buy Print book

(Buy Kindle eBook edition here)

(Information about the Book)

Today’s Popular Posts

  • Section 41, 41A, 41B of CrPC which govern arrest by…
  • Why Indian men should be very careful in filing divorce
  • 498a and maintenance: lose your illusions
  • How to file objections/written statement to…
  • Men ki Baat – Counselling, Discussion of…
  • Procedure of CAW (Crime against women) cell
  • How to handle allegation of impotence by wife
  • How to complain against judges of trial courts, High…
  • How to fight false cases of DV, maintenance, CrPC…
  • 25% (or 50%) of husband’s salary is…

Tags

498A Activism Arrest Child Support Child_Custody_Visitation Commando Gyan Commando Strategy Commando Techniques CrPC CrPC 125 Cruelty Divorce Domestic Violence Industry Dowry DV Act Judgments Evidence False Case False Rape Family Law Feminazis Feminist Figures Feminist Propaganda Fight Back HC Judgment Hindu Marriage Act HMA 24 Law Making Law Misuse Laws Legal Info live-in Maintenance Marriage Men Rights NCW NRI Police Press Release PWDVA(DV Act) Rape RTI SC Judgment Supreme Court WCD Women Reservation Bill

The Benefits of Reading Men Rights India!

before reading MRI
Before


after reading MRI
After

email: I am facing false DV case. I love your blog. It really have me boost to fight this case and I feel so happy that you guys are doing such a commendable work.


comment: Your survey is 100 % true. whatever is written in this blog matches more than 90 % of my marriage life situation.


comment: The Article is really great, it’s actually happening in my life. whatever is mentioned here is the tactics are used by my wife and still going on….


comment: This is a very good article, and some points mentioned here are the real reasons males are threatened to shell out the maintenance amount


comment: This document is very help for me,becoise i am sufring for false dowry case and fiting for them.so thank for to u.


comment: The web content is very useful for its diversity and especially for atrocities committed upon men, emitting a clarion call for them to rise and defend their rights and hood.


comment: Thanks you People doing very may allah grant you Success. Ameen.


comment: This is very helpful. Thanks a lot. Your work is really a morale booster..
Search judgments at Bharat Law
Read judgments at Bharat Law
IPC 498A Judgments
IPC 406 Judgments
DV Act Judgments
CrPC 125 Judgments
Child Custody Judgments

Author on Facebook

Vivek Deveshwar

Free eBook: Surviving the Legal Jungle

Surviving-the-Legal-Jungle-Cover-Image

Featured Posts

Supreme court in need of jurisdiction on foreign citizens!

19 Sep 2010 By videv Leave a Comment

Jurisdiction of foreign court in divorce; When domestic relationship exists; no PWDVA after divorce

31 Jul 2010 By videv 1 Comment

How police makes false rape cases

20 Jul 2010 By videv Leave a Comment

And who could have thought of this?

8 Jun 2010 By videv Leave a Comment

Married sister gets relief under domestic violence act

10 May 2010 By videv Leave a Comment

Equality for Men – Myth or Reality?

Download IMD handbook
Download IMD handbook

Recent Comments

  • videv on How to assess maintenance amount likely to be ordered in CrPC 125 or HMA 24
  • P2 on How to assess maintenance amount likely to be ordered in CrPC 125 or HMA 24
  • Child visitation monitor New Haven on Strategy for Child Custody for Men
  • videv on How to complain against judges of trial courts, High Courts, and Supreme Court?
  • Kartiken on How to complain against judges of trial courts, High Courts, and Supreme Court?

RSS Feeds

  • All Posts
  • DV Act Judgments
  • Maintenance CrPC 125 Judgments
  • 498A Judgments

Archives

Copyright © 2009-2020 · Vivek Deveshwar · Privacy Policy
  • Contact
  • Bare Acts
    • IPC 498A bare act
    • CrPC 125 Bare Act
    • The Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – bare act
    • Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 Bare Act
  • 498a
    • 498a Tips
    • 498a Info
    • 498a Judgments
  • DV Act
    • DV Act Tips
    • DV Act Info
    • DV Act Judgments
  • Maintenance
    • Maintenance CrPC 125 Judgments
    • Maintenance HMA 24 Judgments
  • Child Custody
    • Child Custody Visitation Judgments
    • Child Custody Visitation News
  • Misc
    • Divorce Judgments
    • Law Misuse
    • Marriage
    • Misandry
    • Sexual Harassment
    • Important Posts
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue to use this site we will assume that you are happy with it.OkPrivacy policy