Total Pageviews

Join SIF yahoogroup, get answers..

Join SIF yahoogroup"

Tuesday, November 28, 2006

UN RESOLUTION (Against Domestic Violence Laws(As-they-exists!) world over):Regarding the UN Study on Violence Against Women

Regarding the UN Study on Violence Against Women
1. Whereas, the World Health Organization has reported that twice as many men die from
violence-related causes as women,1
2. Whereas, men are more than three-times more likely than women to die from injuries
sustained from armed conflict,1
3. Whereas, 3.5 times as many men commit suicide worldwide as women, 1
4. Whereas, in almost every country around the world, men have shorter life expectancies than
women, reaching a 13-year disparity in the Russian Federation,2
5. Whereas, a compilation of 195 scientific studies of partner violence concludes, “women are
as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with spouses or
male partners,”3
6. Whereas, according to a Statistics Canada report, 7% of women and 6% of men report
violence by a current or previous partner in the previous five years.4
7. Whereas, according to a recent international study of severe violence among dating couples,
55% was mutual violence, 16% was male-only, and 29% of violence was female-only.5
8. Whereas, the president of the American Psychological Association has recently noted that
“Several studies of domestic violence have suggested that males and females in relationships
have an equal likelihood of acting out physical aggression,”6
9. Whereas, reports from Africa reveal that domestic violence against men is widespread, but
men are reluctant to report the abuses,7,8
10. Whereas, the United Nations recently released the Secretary-General’s Study on Violence
Against Women,
11. Whereas, the report ignores the fact that half of all partner violence is mutual, and glosses
over the problem of male victimization altogether, 9
12. Whereas, the report uses misandrous and inflammatory language such as “patriarchal” in
falsely stereotyping men,
13. Whereas, leading family violence researchers around the world have criticized the report’s
portrayal of domestic violence as being “biased” and ensuring “that both women and men
will continue to be victimised in this way,”10
14. Whereas, programs similar to those proposed by the Secretary-General’s report have caused
undesirable outcomes for women,11
15. Whereas, the report fails to require persons who allege domestic violence to provide
objective evidence of abuse, and false allegations are known to result in harm to children,12
16. Whereas, the report also calls for stronger law enforcement and prosecution efforts, which
have been shown to result in widespread violations of due process protections,13
17. Whereas, the result of such domestic violence programs has been to weaken families, bias
divorce proceedings, and deprive children of contact from their fathers.14
Therefore, the undersigned organizations urgently call on the Third Committee to:
1. Simply “Note” (but not “Welcome”) the recent Secretary-General’s report.
2. Discourage implementation of the recommendations of the Study on Violence Against
Women until its effects on families and children are analyzed and understood.
3. Request incoming UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to undertake a counterpart Study on
Violence against Men.
Mark Rosenthal
RADAR: Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting
James Adams
Dads on the Air
Tony Miller
Dads in Distress
James Adams
Fathers 4 Equality
Barry Williams
Lone Fathers’ Association
Micheal Woods
Men’s Health Information
& Resource Centre
Sue Price
Men’s Rights Agency
John Flanagan
Non-Custodial Parents
Edward Dabrowski
Shared Parenting Council
of Australia
Jan Van Baelen
Families for Justice
Lise Bilodeau
ANCQ (Action Nouvelles
Conjointes du Québec)
Georges Dupuy
Coalition pour la Défense
des Droits des Hommes du
Earl Silverman
Family of Men Support
Brian Jenkins
Fathers are Capable, Too:
Parenting Association
Kris Titus
Fathers 4 Justice –
Daniel Laforest
Fathers-4-Justice Québec
Jean Marie Pomerleau
Fathers-4-Justice –
Outaouais, Québec
Jean-Claude Boucher
l'Après-Rupture, Ateliers
pour les Liens Père-
Enfants, Inc.
Brian Johnson
Regina Shared Parenting
Czech Republic:
Miroslav Kapr
Aliance pro Deti a Rodice
Jiri Solc
Cesky Svaz Muzu
Jiri Fiala
Jiri Vodicka
Lubos Patera
Spravedlnost Detem
Bertrand Giraud
L'Enfant et Son Droit
Grigori Gurewitsch
Düssel Mums & Dads
Dr. Eugen Maus
Thomas Sochart
Vaeter Aktuell
Nicolas Spitalas
Sos Sygapa (Men’s and
Father’s Dignity)
Mary Cleary
AMEN (Abused Men)
Daniel Desmond
Christian Democrats/The
National Party
Nora Bennis
Mothers At Home
Roger Eldridge
National Men's Council of
John Zammit, Ph.D.
Association for Men’s
Peter A.N. Tromp, PhD
Dutch Foundation for
Child and Access
Peter A.N. Tromp, PhD
Eugen Hockenjos
Fathercare Knowledge
Centre Europe
Ad Verdiesen
Gescheiden Vaders
Nederland (Divorced Dads
of the Netherlands)
Theo M. Nieuwenhuizen,
Stichting Ouders zonder
(Dutch Foundation of
Parents without Access)
New Zealand:
Jim Bailey
South Africa:
Steven Pretorius, MBChB
Fathers4Justice South
United Kingdom:
Shaun O’Connell
Family Links International
John Bannon
Environmental Law Centre
Erin Pizzey
International Founder of
Refuges (Shelters) for
Victims of Domestic
Stephen Fitzgerald
The ManKind Initiative
Dave Mortimer
Men’s Aid
Mike McCormick
American Coalition for
Fathers and Children
David Usher
American Coalition for
Fathers and Children –
Tom Smith
American Union for Men
Rinaldo Del Gallo III
Berkshire Fatherhood
Susan Wolpin
Bucks County FACE
Harry Crouch
California Men’s Center,
San Diego
Sally Jacobs
Center for Children’s
Justice - Carolinas
James Hays
Coalition of Fathers and
Families, NY
Mark Charalambous
CPF/The Fatherhood
Paul Clements
Bruce Eden
Dads Against
Discrimination (DADS )--
New Jersey
James Blackstone
DADS - Alabama Chapter
James Semerad
DADS and MOMS of
Michael Burns
Dialogue on Sustainable
George Gilliland
Domestic Rights Coalition
Bob Batterbee
Equal is Equal
Charles Corry, PhD
Equal Justice Foundation
Michael Ross
Family Rights Coalition of
Angela Pedersen
“Father:” A Child’s Right
Mike East
Jeff Golden
Fathers' and Children's
Equality (FACE)
Dan Hogan
Fathers and Families
Jamil Jabr
Fathers for Justice
Ron Jagannathan
Fathers for Virginia
Alan Rusmisel
Fathers 4 Justice --
Joseph Mixon
Fathers 4 Justice – New
Carl Steppling
Florida Coalition for
Families and Children
Tony Spalding
Florida Dads
Don Mathis
The Fourteen Percenter
Alan Millard
Men and Fathers for
Scott Garman
Men’s Activism News
Jeffrey Dick
Men’s Custody Shelter
Tom Golden
Men’s Equality Conference
Michael G. Rother
National Coalition of Free
Deborah Watkins
National Coalition of Free
Men-- Dallas/Fort Worth
Marc Angelucci
National Coalition of Free
Men—Los Angeles
Michael Geanoulis
National Congress for
Fathers and Children --
New Hampshire Chapter
Marty Nemko
National Organization for
Joe Mastromarino, MD
NH Commission on the
Status of Men
Marc Snider
Grayson Walker, Ph.D.
Parents Without Rights
Judith Brumbaugh
Restoration of the Family
David Burroughs
Safe Homes For Children
and Families Coalition
Lee Newman
SAFE (Stop Abuse for
Everyone)- International
Debra Roy/Joanie Comeau
SAFE (Stop Abuse for
Pastor Kenneth Deemer
Shattered Men
Teri Stoddard
Shared Parenting Works
Lisa Scott
TABS: Taking Action
against Bias in the System
Terri Lynn Tersak
True Equality Network
June Marsh
True Equality Network –
Tammy Sears
True Equality Network –
Carol Johnson
True Equality Network –
Eve Smith
True Equality Network –
Alice Barnard
True Equality Network –
Karla Stavich
True Equality Network –
Gina Holleran
True Equality Network –
Julie Garafollo
True Equality Network –
Jane Tomaccicio
True Equality Network –
Ashley Carnes
True Equality Network –
Susan Austin
True Equality Network –
Christine Hoffen
True Equality Network –
New Hampshire
Kris Whitehall
True Equality Network –
New Jersey
Loraine Martin
True Equality Network –
Tina Jordan
True Equality Network –
North Dakota
Kathy Michaels
True Equality Network –
Marsha Folley
True Equality Network –
Jackie Meyers
True Equality Network –
Sylvia Domeco
True Equality Network –
Janice Larken
True Equality Network –
Debbie Weltz
True Equality Network –
Pete Kerr
Walk for Children


1 World Health Organization: World Report on Violence and Health. Geneva, Switzerland, 2002.
2 United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs: World Mortality Report 2005. New York City, NY,
3 Fiebert MS. References examining assaults by women on their spouses or male partners: An annotated
bibliography. Accessed October 15, 2006.
4 Statistics Canada: Family Violence in Canada: A Statistical Profile. Ottawa, Ontario. 2005.
5 Strauss MA: Dominance and symmetry in partner violence by male and female university students in 32 nations.
Presented at the conference on Trends in Intimate Partner Intervention, May 23, 2006. Table 3.
6 Koocher GP. President’s column. Monitor on Psychology. Volume 37, No. 9, October 2006, page 5.
7 Daily News. Men urged to join war against domestic violence. Gaborone, Botswana. April 15, 2004.
8 The Herald: Cases of women abusing men rise. Harare, Zimbabwe, April 14, 2005. http://www.rrbb.
9 Finley GE. Is the U.N. a threat to the health and wellbeing of men?, October 17,
10 RADAR Press Release: UN report criticized as deliberately biased. Rockville, MD: Respecting Accuracy in
Domestic Abuse Reporting, October 23, 2006.
11 RADAR: Six reasons why VAWA is bad for women. 2006.
12 RADAR: Perverse incentives, false allegations, and forgotten children. 2006.
13 RADAR: Bias in the judiciary: The case of domestic violence. 2006.
14 RADAR: Without restraint: The use and abuse of domestic restraining orders. 2006.
November 4, 2006

Thursday, November 23, 2006

Clarification on the Sholay-FemmeFatale!Re: Feminism in Action

Hi all,

Lucio, u r shaping up as a definite genius in analysing and arguing about criminality and events of that nature. Especially for u to have ascertained the age of the Sholay-Basanthi-Andhra-Girl's Lover's age and then to go on and realise that any coitus with a boy under the age of 18 is a technical Rape

Pls take note that I thought the age for this particular tech-rape is 15 with respect to minor boys(and not 18), anyway u would know better thro ur research, i hope. i also read that the boy's present age is 24(and the girl's age as reported in,000600030008.htm is 28), just to give u some point to confirm, just in case if u haven't done this already). Quoting the relevant portion from the above link and news item in HT "Much like Veeru — the character played by Dharmendra in the film – 28-year-old Maheswari climbed atop the water tank in Ashok Nagar locality and threatened to commit suicide unless she was united with her 24-year-old lover Srinivas."

Anyway keep those arguments coming, these will eventually serve as a good 'net-practice when we finally get on the floors of parliament and will have to pin down those terrorist neo/quasi-feminists(or femofascists or feminazies as some of our members fondly mention!) who are taking our entire nation on ransom.



----- Original Message -----
From: B l u e W o l f
To: Lucio Mascarenhas
Sent: Thursday, November 23, 2006 1:46 PM
Subject: Re: Feminism in Action

hi Lucio;
your both articles posted;
i changed name article name as published on news paper

if you want to see all articles just click on calender date on left side, it will display all articles posted on that date

Lucio Mascarenhas ; wrote:

Dear Rudy,

I had posted two articles on your Awardspace site, but only one has turned up, the one about the woman who murdered her own child and eloped with another man....

What happened to the other story about the woman who staged a tamasha atop a water tank in Andhra so that she could marry her paramour? (See attachment).

Incidentally, what the newsreport does not point out in that story is that the woman is guilty of RAPE, since the boy with whom she was having an affair was legally a minor at the time she began her affair with him, since the story says it has been since two years, and he is now 19 years old.

Kind regards,

Lucio Mas.
Woman enacts Sholay scene to net lover

Ashok Das Hyderabad, November 19, 2006,000600030008.htm

Ram Gopal Verma’s remake of Sholay is yet to hit the theatres. But townsfolk of Godavarikhani in Karminagar district were treated to a scene from the blockbuster bang in the middle of the town. A married woman and mother of two climbed atop a water tank and threatened to jump if her lover did not marry her.

Much like Veeru — the character played by Dharmendra in the film – 28-year-old Maheswari climbed atop the water tank in Ashok Nagar locality and threatened to commit suicide unless she was united with her 24-year-old lover Srinivas.

People were still bleary-eyed on Sunday morning when the scene unfolded on top of the 100-metre-tall tank. When asked about the reason for her antic, Maheswari scribbled a note on a piece of paper and threw it down.

She poured out her anger and grief in the note and blamed Srinivas for not marrying her despite his intimate relationship with her for the past two years. Srinivas, who works in cell phone company, belongs to the same locality.

As the drama dragged on for three hours, the local legislator, K Easwar, and additional superintendent of police arrived at the scene.

When the woman refused to come down, they brought Srinivas to the scene. A much embarrassed Srinivas vowed to marry her and asked her to come down.

But unlike Veeru, Maheswari did not fall for his words. She wanted him to marry her there in front of the onlookers. Srinivas had to climb up the tank and exchange garlands before Maheswari relented.

The denouement of the tragic-comedy: Maheswari was arrested and booked for attempting suicide and for entering into a marriage while still being married to another person.

Maheswari was earlier married to an autorickshaw driver. She has two children from the marriage — an eight-year-old daughter and a six-year-old son.

She had left her husband some time ago and was living with her parents when she became intimate with Srinivas.

As she has not yet got a divorce from her first husband she cannot legally enter into another marriage, police said.

Andhra woman enacts Sholay suicide scene
By: Agencies November 20, 2006

Sandhya stood on a 20-metre high water tank and threatened to jump if Srinivas did not marry her. She finally came down after Srinivas climbed on the tank and exchanged garlands with her. Images have been taken from TV grabs

KARIMNAGAR: Taking a leaf from Bollywood, a lovelorn girl in Andhra Pradesh perched on a water tank Sunday, threatening to jump if her paramour did not marry her on the spot.

In the Hindi blockbuster Sholay Viru (Dharmendra) had threatened to jump from the village water tank, if Basanti, his lady loved did not marry him. THe scene was recreated in Godavarikhani town in Karimnagar district, about 150 km from here, with Dharmendra’s role played by local girl Sandhya (22).

Sandhya, who was allegedly ditched by her lover, stood on a 20-metre high water tank and threatened to jump down if Srinivas did not marry her.
With one leg dangling from the tank, the girl brought the entire town to a standstill. Police and civil officials came rushing to persuade her to come down. An official even promised to arrange the wedding.

As hundreds of people gathered on the ground holding their breath, the police began a frantic search for Srinivas, an employee in a private company.

However, even his arrival did not bring down Sandhya, who insisted that he come up and marry her on the water tank itself.

As the whole town watched and TV cameras covered the event, Sandhya relented only when police, with the help of locals, arranged for the exchange of garlands with her 19-year-old lover Srivinas, Additional Superintendent of Police Srikanth said.

Police later took her into custody and registered a case of attempted suicide against her. The entire episode at Godavarikhani town lasted four hours, Srikanth said. “We agreed to fulfil her wish as we wanted to save her life,” he maintained.

Srinivas, however, has not attained the legal age of marriage for males, which is 21 according to the Marriage Act.

498A Crusader AutoBioGraphy of A Dowry Law Victim 24-hour All India Helpline Number:91-09243473794 Volunteer Helpline Numbers: Delhi : 9871734980, 9810611534, 9911119113 Chandigarh: 9888562582 Bangalore : 80-55334135 Mumbai : 9224335577 Jaipur : 09352562456

Sunday, November 19, 2006

Do gender biased laws in India actually benefit women?

IPC section 498a was originally designed to protect married women
from being harassed or subjected to cruelty by husbands and/or their
relatives. This law was mainly aimed at curbing dowry harassment.
Unfortunately, this law has been misused to harass men and their
families rather than protect genuine female victims of harassment.
The Supreme Court of India itself has labeled the misuse of section
498a as "legal terrorism" and stated that "many instances have come
to light where the complaints are not bona fide and have been filed
with an oblique motive. In such cases, acquittal of the accused does
not wipe out the ignominy suffered during and prior to the trial.
Sometimes adverse media coverage adds to the misery. " In agreement
with the above statement, the findings of a study conducted by The
Center for Social Research indicated that 98 percent of the cases
filed under IPC section 498a are false. Nevertheless, the law has
been always justified based on its intention of protecting women. At
this point it would be worthwhile to think about how IPC section 498a
has really affected women.

It has been argued by Government officials favoring the law that
despite the establishment of legal measures to counter harassment of
married women, there is an increase in the number of cases of
harassment. The first part of the statement suggests that women who
are harassed should be utilizing this law as a means of protection.
If harassed women indeed used the law then we should see a decrease
in the number of cases of harassment over time. Considering the
stringent consequences imposed by the law and the inordinate delays
inherent in the legal system, no ordinary citizen, male or female,
would be impudent enough to risk being implicated under this law for
the sake of satisfying their monetary or even sadistic desires for
that matter.

The fact is that many women who are actually beaten up and harassed
by their husbands and in-laws rarely file 498a or resort to other
dowry related laws. A lot of them live in rural areas, unaware of the
law or lack the necessary economic and moral support from their natal
families. Going by the conviction rate the proportion of women who
have genuine cases is 2%. Most women who file 498a are from urban
backgrounds and are either capable of fending for themselves or have
enough family support to fall back on. The proportion of women who
belong to this category is 98%. In the 98% of false cases, in every
instance that 1 daughter-in-law files a false complaint at least 2
women (an innocent mother-in-law and sister-in-law) are arrested and
undergo stress, humiliation and harassment in the hands of the
exploitative police, lawyers, staff and officials in Indian courts
before being acquitted several years later. So, in every 100 cases 2
women genuinely benefit, 98 women get away with perjury and
extortion, and at least 196 women suffer needlessly.

The number of cases that are filed in police stations or courts are
the basis for the official statistics of dowry harassment. So, given
that the law allows women unlimited scope to fabricate lies (with no
penalty of perjury) and given that women are encouraged to keep
filing false cases the statistics of "dowry harassment" are bound to
rise while the problem of genuine harassment is left unchecked. So,
the government has, in the name of protection of women, done grave
injustice to two groups of women. The first group constitutes the
genuine victims of dowry harassment whose misery remains unmitigated
but is constantly alluded to in order to justify the law. The second
group consists of innocent mothers and sisters of husbands who are
criminalized and harassed by the police and the legal system without
any regard to their age, health or marital status. Pregnant women,
unmarried sisters, ailing mothers and even aged grandmothers have
been sent behind the bars under false allegations but their pain and
suffering has not even been acknowledged leave alone addressed by the
Government. Through IPC section 498a, the Government is actually
protecting those women that indulge in perjury, blackmail, extortion
and harassment of their husbands and in-laws.

The recently passed Domestic Violence Bill claims that it will
protect women from Domestic Violence which includes physical, verbal,
emotional, sexual and economical abuse. According to the law an
aggrieved person is defined as "any woman who is, or has been, in a
domestic relationship with the respondent…" and a respondent is
defined as "an adult male person who is, or has been, in a domestic
relationship with the aggrieved person…". Thus, the law only
recognizes domestic violence committed by a man on a woman in a
household shared in the past or present. While this law is heavily
biased against men, many supporters of the law are claiming that this
law is good for women. The following are some gross inconsistencies
in the law that prove that the DV Act is not good for women either.

There are several instances where a daughter-in-law and/or her blood
relatives commit Domestic Violence (as defined by the law) against
her mother-in-law, sister-in-law or any other females related by
marriage. In addition, mothers or step-mothers abuse their children
(who include daughters or step-daughters) physically, verbally,
emotionally and economically and vice versa. In such a situation, the
law does not provide any protection to female victims of Domestic
Violence. Thus, the law can only be used by a wife or a girlfriend
(present or former) and their relatives/friends against a man and his

According to Clause 17 of the Act legally divorced women and former
separated girlfriends/live-in partners can claim right to residence
in the home of their former husband or former partner even though the
Act says they may not have any right, title or beneficial interest in
the same. The law can thus force a former wife or former girlfriend
on a man's household and violate the rights of his present wife or
partner. The law does not provide protection to a man's current wife
or girlfriend/live-in partner or even dependent mothers and sisters
under such circumstances. Here, the law favors divorced women and
former girlfriends at the cost of the rights of a legally wedded
wife/live-in partner and other female relatives that share a
household with a man.

According to Section 19 a man can be removed from his own household
and him and his relatives can be restrained from entering any portion
of the household in which the aggrieved person resides. Through this
clause the law supports the encroachment of property by a girlfriend
(former or present) at the expense of the right to residence of a
man, his legally wedded wife and any other dependent female members
of a family. In the name of protecting a section of women who may be
making true or false allegations, the law penalizes innocent women
who are related to an accused man.

Despite documented evidence that section 498a of IPC has been heavily
misused affecting more and more women (along with men) everyday, no
amendments to this law have been proposed so far. As with section
498a of IPC, the Domestic Violence Act is replete with loopholes and
is bound to be misused. The DV Act will allow legally wedded women,
divorced women and girlfriends (former or present) to subject a man
and his relatives (male and female) to domestic violence and legal
harassment. This Act, like Section 498a of IPC will result in the
harassment of many more innocent women than it claims it will
protect. It is important for the Government to acknowledge the fact
that IPC 498a and DV Act are bad laws that criminalize ordinary
citizens (male and female) and violate their fundamental rights.
Unless urgent amendments are made to prevent the misuse of these
laws, credibility of women will be lost. In addition to lost
credibility, an overload of false cases will worsen the delays in the
judicial process and deny timely justice to women who are genuinely

Unreasonable and easily misused laws like IPC 498a and DV Act are
already creating a situation of fear and mutual distrust and
adversely affecting interpersonal relationships between men and women
in the society. This is resulting in more and more broken families
and depriving children of a healthy childhood. If the Government and
women's organizations were truly interested in improving the living
conditions of women in India they would focus on empowering women
through education. Education builds self-confidence and gives a
person the ability to stand up for oneself. Educating women can also
ensure that the next generation of children are raised to treat each
other with respect and be better citizens. The Government and women's
organizations can also lend support for rehabilitation of abused
women and protect them from further harassment without doing
injustice to innocent men. It would behoove the Government and
women's organizations to work in collaboration with social scientists
and psychologists to understand human behavior in the context of
changing social conditions and standards in India and think about
workable solutions to deal with Domestic Violence and other forms of
abuse instead of criminalizing ordinary citizens. Positive measures
that can bring about domestic harmony are the only way to ensure
family stability and long-term social stability.

Uma Challa
(SIF Member)

Friday, November 17, 2006

National Crime Research Bureau
East Block-7, R.K. Puram, New Delhi-110066, India

Subject : Request for to report abuse against men in gender and domestic crime statistics.

Dear Sir,

I am writing on behalf of Save Indian Family Foundation.

The request is for addition of a new section to annual crime reports published by National Crime Research Bureau, for offences against men.

We are aware that it is presumed in Indian law that there can not be sexual or domestic offences against men. However studies world-wide has shown that women are equally likely to be abusive in gender relationship. Absence of laws and social pressures prevent victimized men from approaching police stations. We have received a number of complaints from men and husbands, about the offences of sexual nature and domestic sphere. But all of them were reluctant to approach police stations or have reported that there complaints were not actionable in law and hence there is no use of filing such complaints.

In view of such scenario, to enable the parliament to understand the situation of abuse of genders in sexual and domestic relationship, we request NCRB to gather statistics of the complaints filed by men, even if those are not actionable in law, but would have been actionable, if would have been filed by men and report them in annual crime statistics. So that parliament may be able to understand the plight of men, who face sexual or domestic abuse.

In light of above knowledge, we request you to remove crime against women section from annual crime reports and add two sections
1. Gender abuse
2. Domestic abuse

The two sections may further be divided for male and female, such as

The gender abuse for male and female section may list statistics of offences related to gender such as
Sr. no. offence Male Female
1. Rape S.377 According to law
2. Molestation No. of non-actionable reports due to absence of law According to law
3. Sexual harassment No. of non-actionable reports due to absence of law According to law
4. Immoral traffic act No. of non-actionable reports due to absence of law According to law
5. Indecent representation of women No. of non-actionable reports due to absence of law According to law.

And Domestic abuse for male and female may list statistics of offences in domestic sphere such as

Sr. No. Offence Male Female
1. Sati prevention act Husbands murdered by his in-laws According to law
2. Dowry death Husbands murdered by his in-laws and who have committed suicide and accused wife or her relatives of causing such suicide. According to law.
3. S.498a Cases Grievous Hurt, voluntary hurt or criminal intimidation by wife and her relatives or any other cases which were not actionable in law. According to law.
4. Domestic violence act Non-actionable complaints by men against female members of family According to law.

Such data report will help Parliament legislate laws in correct balance of genders. We wish NCRB to assist in providing statistical data to also give foresight into need of legislations in the country.

It is also to be noted that although India has all such offences absent for Men, most developed countries recognize these offences for men too and the National Crime Research Bureau of these countries also report the same offences against men. I am attaching report of gender crime statistics reported in UK.

Please also note that if the laws are absent in India, does not mean that the crimes against men do not happen in India. We look upto NCRB to provide the data to Parliament to be able to take decision on legislating these laws for gender and domestic abuse for men and women.
Yours sincerely,

(Name )

Copy sent to
1. Minister of Home Affairs, New Delhi
2. Prime Minister of India, PMO Office, New Delhi
3. V.K. Duggal, Home Secretary, Govt. of India, New Delhi
4. Minister of Parliamentary affairs, New Delhi
5. Cabinet Minister

Gender crime report UK is hosted at
This letter is addressed to Media/Govt/bureacracy:

News from IBN live:

In the above video2, this participant ruler of the country clearly knows 98% cases of IPC-498a (dowry law) i.e, 98% misuse of dowry laws.

what is 98% MISUSE by dowry law means?:

1) Every year atleast 50,000 families (out of 70,000 police FIRs on 498a) for nearly 15+ yrs (total 7 lkhs 50,000 families or around 0.5 crore persons) including intellectuals (5% intellectuals creates 60% infrastructure in most countries) who are responsible for the infrastructure of the country(like scientists, phds, engineers, doctors) wasted their precious time, value, money for 5 to 8 yrs(minimum time it takes in any court for dowry law in india) declared as innocents by hight courts/supremecourts/session courts. These ppl lost faith, trust on the executive system and governance of the country. Many out of these ppl (very elders) depressed, died, diseased, lived in fear cursing at courts at old age before dying. how many children raised under single parenting. See how the resources of the country wasted for nothing. who is responsible for this? Is this the way country use/d intellectuals or resources for the country? no one questions.

No one cares poor real suffering several women who not even inside this 100% 498a cases.


Pls. see the real statistics here how many men die before marriage and how many die after marriage:

It states that -- "The distribution of suicides by marital status reveals some interesting patterns. The rates do not vary much between the sexes for the never married. Among those currently married, while the rate for males is about 17 per 100,000 persons, the rate for females is 11.4 per 100,000. Among those widowed, while the rate for males is 21 per 100,000 persons, the rate for females is also significantly lower, at 6.6 per 100,000. However, among divorced males the suicide rate is 164 per 100,000 persons, but even in this class, among females the rate is only 63 per 100,000. While the suicide rate for separated men is about 167, for females it is only 41 per 100,000 persons. "


National crime records bureau (NCRB) statistics about suicides:
It states that - : "
The ratio of Male : Female victims of suicide was 63 : 37.
Nearly 44.7% of the suicide victims were married males while only 25% were married females."
Male Female accident Victim Ratio — 76 : 24.


Domestic Violence Rumor Mill Runs the United Nations

By David R. Usher on Nov 13, 06

If United States Ambassador John Bolton fails to act, world feminists will seize vast powers to destroy families internationally while committing tremendous human rights violations against men, women, and children in every country of the world.

Everyone agrees that domestic violence is a problem. Feminists dishonestly pretend it is entirely problem of unruly men, buttressed by unreliable myopic surveys of women. The purpose of this feminist approach is to achieve the primary goal of radical feminism: to destroy marriage, seize children and family wealth, and establish the liberated single-mother family. Unfounded allegations of abuse are the political and legal vector already used in many western countries to achieve this end.

The senseless destruction of marriage, homes, families, and the lives of children in western cultures has deeply violated the human rights of everyone. It has transformed many good cities into third-world urban disasters suffering from rampant illegitimacy, prostitution, crime, child sexual predation, and poverty. Radicals at the United Nations wish to force their new world order on the rest of the world.
The truth is this: women are as likely, or even more likely than men to engage in, and initiate, domestic violence. According to a 32-nation by Murray Straus, female-only partner aggression is twice as prevalent as male-only partner abuse.

Many credible individuals now recognize this fact. They acknowledge the truth, and in many cases advocating strongly against the looming radical takeover of the United Nations. You can count on leaders and knowledgeable professionals (not driven by entitlements or political power) such as President Bush, Phyllis Schlafly, Dr. Gerald Koocher (President of the APA), Dr. Murray Straus, Dr. Don Dutton, Wendy McElroy, Dr. Felicity Goodyear-Smith, and Lee Newman [SAFE International] to speak the truth.

Even a child could see through the rumor-mill-fed machinations of feminists. Here are a few examples:

· The 113-page United Nations Report admits it is based on a “lack [of] systematic and reliable data on violence against women”. There is no evidence in the report that any information was collected about women’s violence against men. Without any supportive factual foundation, the U.N. Report claims that “Violence against women persists in every country in the world as a pervasive violation of human rights and a major impediment to achieving gender equality”.

· The U.N. Commission on Human Rights framework for model legislation on domestic violence is a carte-blanche vehicle empowering feminists to violate science and human rights in every country of the world. It defines domestic violence solely as “gender-specific violence directed against women“, and admonishes states to “adopt the broadest possible definitions of acts of domestic violence”. It states, “There shall be no restrictions on women bringing suits against spouses or live-in partners”. The victim must be advised “of her rights as outlined below”. The responding officer must “arrange for the removal of the offender from the home and, if that is not possible and if the victim is in continuing danger, arrest the offender”. It permits immediate seizure of assets, and criminal conviction on the sole basis uncorroborated testimony by the alleged victim.

· WHO’s director Lee Jong-Wook made a stunning, scientifically-juxtaposed claim about global domestic violence: “Women are more at risk from violence involving people they know at home than from strangers in the street.”

· The World Bank estimates that “sexual and domestic violence accounts for 19 per cent of the disease burden among women aged 15-44 in industrialised countries”. Do banks scientifically study domestic violence?

· A UNPF report alleges that two-thirds of married women in India were victims of domestic violence, and then contradicts itself by claiming that 70 per cent of married women in India between the age of 15 and 49 are victims of beating, rape or coerced sex. This report also asserts that the rate of domestic violence is much higher in Egypt with 94 per cent and Zambia with 91 per cent.

· UNICEF makes a wild assertion based on a “study” done in conjunction with Body Shop International (a mail-order firm specializing in toiletries) “at least one in three women globally has been beaten, coerced into sex, or abused in some other way-most often by someone she knows, including by her husband or another male family member. Globally, one woman in four has been abused during pregnancy.” If one-quarter of pregnant women are beaten, that leaves only 8% being beaten when they are not pregnant. The report spends much time discussing children living in situations of domestic violence, but fails to determine whether domestic abuse by the mother or father is the cause of child problems.

Where do these dangerous claims come from? Non-Governmental Womens organizations around the world generate volumes of narcissistic surveys about violence. These are fed to feminists in the United Nations, whose re-sytheses are recited round-robin by NGO’s, creating vast illusions for predatory political use.

Here are a few examples how the revolving feminist rumor mill works:

· Women’s activists in Russia claim that 50,000 Russian women are beaten every hour. If this is true, every one of the 66,758,805 women in Russia would be beaten every 13 days.

· The Texas Council on Family violence makes unfathomable claims based on nothing more than informal surveys of women: “Over 24,000 women from 15 sites in 10 countries were interviewed for the World Health Organization’s study which showed that over 75 per cent of them were physically or sexually abused since the age of 15 and reported a partner as the culprit.”

· Based solely on self-generated “surveys” of women, feminist activists in India claim that 70% of women are abused, despite the fact that no credible scientific studies have ever been undertaken to support the claim.

· The Feminist Majority cites World Health Organization (WHO) surveys of women, saying that “More than 25 percent of women said they had experienced moderate to severe domestic violence in the last year. At six of the 15 sites, over 50 percent of women had experienced a moderate to severe level of domestic violence. The study found that rural Ethiopia had the highest rate of domestic violence, with 71 percent of women experiencing violence in the home.

United Nations should be involved in ending domestic violence. The approach must be realistic and scientifically appropriate on a country-by-country basis. Clearly, the ideological feminist approach will harm many women, men, and families, and be dangerous to the world. The United States must not submit to foreign controls that lump it in the same category as Sudan.

We have nothing to fear but fear itself. Ambassador Bolton should testify against acceptance of the Secretary General’s Report, and state why it is unacceptable. President Bush should send a message that the United States will not support the United Nations at the present level of $5.3 billion annually, should it pursue a course of action that will clearly violate human rights in most egalitarian countries of the world.


Fake Statistics Used to Claim that Wife-Beating is Men's "Birthright"
Throughout the world women in dating relationships are twice as likely as men to be perpetrators of serious domestic violence. In India, for example, 23.0% of severe aggression was instigated by women, 15.3% was male-initiated, and 61.5% was mutual – see, Table 3.
But those facts didn't stop The Washington Times (TWT) from publishing an article that completely ignored the problem of women who physically abuse men:
It's not just that the article is one-sided – it also makes inflammatory and derisive statements about men. The story quotes Brinda Karat of the All-India Democratic Women's Association who claims that men "want to hold on to their birthright to beat up women."
How can any responsible journalist include such a derogatory claim about any group in society?
The TWT article does mention the problem of false allegations by women. But that does not compensate for the fact that the article doesn't give the exact source of a key statistic.
The article claims, "A 2005 U.N. Population Fund report found that 70 percent of married women in India were victims of beatings or rape." Somehow that number seems a little hard to believe.
So RADAR did an extensive search of the UN Population Fund's website. Nothing there.
Then a Google search. No luck.
So RADAR finally contacted the UNDP Information Office. The UNDP employee was unable to find a statement in any UNDP publication that even resembled that statistic.
Conclusion: The phony 70% figure was concocted by someone whose agenda was something other than reporting the truth.
Folks, we can't let this inflammatory story pass unnoticed. The editors at the Washington Times need to hear from a boatload of upset readers. Please tell them this message:
"The 'Abused Wives in India' article is biased, laced with anti-male rhetoric, and uses make-believe statistics. It ignores the well-documented fact that in India, women are twice as likely as men to engage in partner violence: The story is so systematically flawed that it resembles a propaganda piece. The Washington Times should promptly retract this article and do a follow-up article that tells the truth about domestic violence."

Santhakka(SIF member)

Disclaimer: This is my opinion and experience/research only, and links are respective owners opinions and there is no attempt to cloud anyone's judgement or manipulate perceptions in anyway, and statistics taken from, NCRB, frontline. names changed.
RADAR Alert:

Take 60 Seconds, Save the World from a VAWA Melt-Down!

Twelve years ago the US Congress passed the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA). As a result, 2 million restraining orders are issued every year, half of which don’t involve even an allegation of physical violence. Many of those orders result in fathers losing custody and contact with their children.

Last month the United Nations issued its Study on Violence Against Women. The study recommends that every country around the world enact VAWA-like laws:

Of course the UN feminists hoped the UN Third Committee would immediately “welcome” the Study so they could get on with the job. But thanks to your e-mails, phone calls, and faxes, the proposal has been delayed.

Now, time is running out -- the UN Third Committee needs to reach a decision by this coming Wednesday, November 22. That’s the date when the committee wraps up its session.

So this is it folks! This is our last shot! Let’s not hold anything back!

So right now, please send an e-mail or fax to your UN Ambassador – see contact information below. Politely explain that:

The Study on Violence against Women is deeply flawed. If the report is welcomed, its recommendations will cause lasting damage to families, women, and men. Please express your very strong reservations about this harmful study to the UN Third Committee. And vote to only “note” the report, not “welcome” it.

Here’s the contact information. If your country is not listed, send your e-mail or fax to the Ambassadors of France and the Netherlands, who are coordinating the Third Committee’s discussions about the Violence Report:

Mr. Robert Hill
Henri-Paul Normandin
Czech Republic
Hynek Kmonicek
Mr. Jean-Marc de la Sabliere
Gunter Pleuger
Adamantios Vassilakis
Mr. Richard Ryan
Victor Camilleri
Franciscus Majoor
New Zealand
Ms. Rosemary Banks
United Kingdom
Sir Emyr Parry
John Bolton

The Secretary-General’s violence report is rooted in a radical gender ideology. If the report is welcomed and implemented, that will give rise to false allegations of abuse and violate the civil rights of men. This will ultimately cause profound damage to families and children around the world.


The UN Resolution Coalition, headed by R.AD.A.R., is an alliance of over 110 organizations located in 14 countries that have signed the Resolution Regarding the UN Study on Violence Against Women: .

R.A.D.A.R. – Respecting Accuracy in Domestic Abuse Reporting – is a non-profit, non-partisan organization of men and women working to assure that the problem of domestic violence is treated in a balanced and effective manner.

please distribute this Alert far and wide. Thanks! Ed B (edwardbartlett)

Sunday, November 12, 2006

98 % MISUSE of DOWRY LAW IS OKAY !!! - Ms. Renuka Chaudhary

98 % MISUSE of DOWRY LAW IS OKAY !!! – Renuka Chaudhary

Full News Article At :
Pls Note : There are TEN pages please read carefully.
Dear Sir(s)/Madam(s)
PS : A copy of this mail message is being marked (or will be marked) to :-
1 Honb’le Prime Minister of India.
2 Honb’le President Of India.
3 Hobb’le Ministers and Members of parliament
4 Save Indian Family Foundation ( - The biggest Self help group In India)
5 Save Indian Society (
6 Dowry Law Misuse Forum (
5 Police officers of india
6 News agencies and media agencies
7 NGO’s like Asha Kiran (
8 Purushakk
9 Protect Indian Family
10 National Commission of Women (NCW) and related organisations and NGO's.
11 Various activists who are opposing the MISUSE of LAWS by women.
News text as follows :

I'll empower women: Chowdhury

Posted Sunday , November 12, 2006 at 20:39
Updated Sunday , November 12, 2006 at 21:24 Email Print
RENUKA SPEAKS: Renuka Chowdhury says Domestic Violence Bill will empower women.
Karan Thapar: Hello and welcome to Devil’s Advocate. Will the UPA Government’s Domestic Violence Bill convert innocent husbands into offenders and criminals, and worse, will it empower motivated women to act viciously and get away with it? Those are the two key issues I should raise in an exclusive interview with the Minister for Women and Child Development, Renuka Chowdhury.
Ms Chowdhury, let’s start with the definitions under this Act, which are so wide that they are worrying. To begin with, there is the whole question of what the Act means by domestic violence - it covers verbal abuse, emotional abuse, economic abuse and anything that tends towards them. I put it to you, that’s so wide as to be either meaningless or dangerously self-embracing.
Renuka Chowdhury: I don’t know why you have to see it in two extremes. Why have you not ever noticed that women live in dangerously self-embracing situations? That it’s none of this, even if you see it as porosity in the Act or that the ambit is too wide. Please understand that women are burnt to death, beaten to insensibilities.
Karan Thapar:But the cure is not imprecision, the cure is not vagueness of legislation.
Renuka Chowdhury:Absolutely.
Karan Thapar:Let me explain why this Act is imprecise. For instance, emotional and verbal abuses are defined to include insults and ridicule. That means you can’t be sarcastic to your wife, it means you can’t call you brother-in-law an ass or a mother-in-law a nag even if both are those are correct. Surely, that’s a level of silliness, but it’s a part of your Bill.
Renuka Chowdhury: I want to tell you what you deem as silly is really not something that I have created today. Under the IPC section, speaking in a way that is denigrating to the status of women, which removes her from her dignity, is very much an Act under the IPC. So I don’t see what are you getting heated up about today.
Karan Thapar:But you are here interfering in normal conversation between two adults. As Soli Sorabjee writing in The Indian Express pointed out, you are reducing an important and serious issue to the level of silliness.
Renuka Chowdhury: I don’t think anything that happens to a women in the sense of her domestic violence can be termed as silly. It is over-trivialising and over-simplifying this Act. Please understand that despite all the checks, women are burnt, one in six women is raped, murdered, beaten to death, sent in to mental asylums. I don’t think that’s funny.
Karan Thapar: No doubt. But that’s not what your Act concentrates on. Look, for instance, at economic abuse. It is defined by the Act as deprivation of any economic or financial resource, which the aggrieved is entitled to by custom and it includes disposal of household effects. Under that language, if a husband was to sell the family television at a time when his marriage was going through a bad patch, it should be deemed to be domestic violence. Now, that’s ridiculous, but it is very much a part of the Act.
Renuka Chowdhury:Is it anymore ridiculous than the fact that well-to-do men suddenly turn around and claim that they have no money, that they are bankrupt because they have to pay alimony to a woman - where human dignity is involved.
Karan Thapar:But what your Act has done is to take trivial issues - that could happen quite innocently, inadvertently and turn them into offences and crimes.
Renuka Chowdhury: I don’t agree with you. We are saying, we are facilitating and setting up a legal framework where by we expect to…
Karan Thapar:A very bad legal framework, insufficient legal framework and an imprecise one.
Renuka Chowdhury: Please listen to me. Can I be allowed to talk or otherwise this is deemed as domestic violence, this is professional violence.
Karan Thapar: That’s the danger; you are proving my point.
Renuka Chowdhury:Absolutely.
Karan Thapar:A mere interruption becomes domestic violence.
Renuka Chowdhury:Interruption? This is an overrun! It is an interpretation of what is an interruption and verbal overrun.
Karan Thapar:Don’t you think you are proving my point?
Renuka Chowdhury: You may think so, but let’s wait for what others think. But I want to tell you what I think. I think that if there is harmony within the house, there is nothing for anyone to fear. But if there is complete disharmony, where one partner is completely incapacitated, made to be dependent on another partner and they are harassed… you have no idea what harmony means.
Karan Thapar: That’s a biased statement which you are elevating into a principle of false philosophy. The reason that in fact it isn’t true is very simple: look at the range of people covered by your Act. It talks about aggrieved persons, and aggrieved persons are defined as any woman who is or has been in a domestic relationship. Then it defines domestic relationship as the relationship between two persons who live or have at any point of time lived together in a shared household.
Put them together and your Act covers not just wives, but wives who have been divorced, girlfriends who you have separated perhaps as long as a decade ago. Why are those included in the ambit of this Act?
Renuka Chowdhury: Why? Because, women even in those relationships have been harassed and held to ransom. There have been enough divorced women who have been divorced because of various reasons, and money is not returned.
Karan Thapar:Divorced women have a decree that is given by a court; an alimony that is given by a court; the divorce has been adjudicated; it is legal. There is no need for you to interfere.
Renuka Chowdhury: Fair enough. Let us assume there is no need for us to interfere.
Karan Thapar:Don’t assume, it’s a fact.
Renuka Chowdhury: Ok, if it’s a fact. But please tell me do you think a woman is given a divorce easily where a man doesn’t want (to give divorce). Go to the court and have a look.
Karan Thapar: When a divorce is given and granted by a court, there is no need to go further back in the picture. But you do.
Renuka Chowdhury: I tell you why we do it. If a man violates his custodial rights; if a man violates his restraint order; if after a divorce a husband keeps stalking me or harassing me; if a man turns up and smashes my windows - don’t you think that keeps happening, Mr Karan Thapar?
Karan Thapar:It may happen. But that’s not what your Act concentrates upon. Clause 3-C doesn’t just limit the ambit of the Act to former girlfriends you have separated from or former wives, it even talks about any person related to the aggrieved person. This means it’s not just the former girlfriend, arguably it’s her step-brother as well - this is becoming ridiculous at this stage. It means - let me interpret this for you - that a husband cannot threaten to verbally abuse. Note the words: just threaten to verbally abuse the step-brother of a former girlfriend who he parted with 10 years ago. That ambit is taking a major concern to a ridiculous extent.
Renuka Chowdhury:Oh my God! I tell you, you are looking at such extremely ridiculous situations.
Karan Thapar:It’s part of your Bill.
Renuka Chowdhury: You should be writing for a television series.
Karan Thapar:I am afraid your Bill seems to cater for it. That’s the problem.
Renuka Chowdhury: Ok, if that’s how you interpret it. But a man would, I am not surprised.
Karan Thapar:It is not a question of a man would. The reason I am pointing out the ridiculous extremes is that laws are always judged by the extremes, not by the middle position.
And what your law does - because of the wide ambit of the definition of domestic violence and because of the long range of people it covers - it tends to convert innocent husbands into offenders and criminals, and worse, it gives the power to motivated women who want to be vicious, or forgive me bloody-minded, to get away with such behaviour. That’s why it is potentially dangerous.
Renuka Chowdhury:Karan Thapar, you have to understand that this Bill addresses a family as a unit within a prescribed legal framework. If the ‘innocent husband’ as you call him is ‘innocent’ and his behaviour and attitude to his partner in life is of mutual respect and concern, there is no anxiety for men to suddenly feel victimised and victims of the whole thing.
Karan Thapar: But the point is how do you define the offence you hold him guilty of? Sarcasm becomes an offence; calling your brother-in-law an ass becomes an offence.
Renuka Chowdhury:No, calling him an ass doesn’t… that’s your personal equation. If your brother-in-law and you are not happy with each other, you are going to look at excuses. But if there is basic harmony and you call a friend or brother-in-law an ass, he is not going to take you to court, let me tell you.
Karan Thapar: Let me point it out to you why this is such a dangerous Act. Critics are pointing out that this Act is going to go the way of the anti-dowry law; it’s going to be deliberately misused.
Let me point out what the Supreme Court said in July 2005 about the anti-dowry law. It said many instances have come to light where the complaints are not bona fide and have been filed with an oblique motive. In such cases, acquittal of the accused does not wipe out the ignominy suffered during and prior to the trial. Sometimes adverse media coverage adds to the misery. Your act is going to go exactly the same way as the anti-dowry law.
Renuka Chowdhury:I want to tell you, when we bring out an Act, we help set a direction for a certain socially-accepted behaviour. Those are the broader parameters. Because of a minute percentage of people who misappropriate the Act, are you saying that I should not bring an Act, I should be in denial that women are not domestically harassed, that they are not kicked, removed from their home, denied access to their children, to their own earnings, and that they have no recourse to law?
Karan Thapar: Let me answer your question. You talk of a minute percentage of people?
Renuka Chowdhury:Yes.
Karan Thapar: The Centre for Social Research with regard to the anti-dowry law did a study after the Supreme Court judgment came out in August of 2005 and it concluded that of every 100 cases brought under the anti-dowry law, 98 per cent were false. Only two were correct. It’s not a minute percentage; the level of abuse that this could incur is phenomenally high.
Renuka Chowdhury:It’s okay.
Karan Thapar: It’s okay? It’s acceptable?
Renuka Chowdhury:It’s not acceptable, don’t put words into my mouth. No, I am very clear about it. Kindly listen - the law is not a static issue. Law reflects the need for a society to be given direction. We have put in broad parameters and we will see in which this direction this law goes. But even if this statistics are telling you that 98 per cent of the cases reported are violated and are wrong, please tell me the statistics of how many women are killed everyday, forced into abortions, raped against their will, denied access to society and property. Tell me those statistics and we will talk about it.
Karan Thapar: There is no doubt that women in India need protection. There is no doubt that domestic violence is one of the worst features of our society. The problem is you are protecting women at cost of exposing men to gross injustice. That’s why this Bill is wrong. You are creating one right against another wrong.
Renuka Chowdhury:Karan Thapar, why didn’t you do two rights in your shows earlier for those women who have no access to any justice in this country despite the establishment of laws? Are there no laws on Sati?
Karan Thapar: But you don’t have to give them access to justice at the cost of men being treated badly. That’s what you are doing. You are exposing men to injustice, harassment.
Renuka Chowdhury:We are not, we are not.
Karan Thapar: You keep talking about direction. You keep talking about importance of setting a direction for society. Clause 17 of the Act gives divorced women and former separated girlfriends - and I use that language very carefully: divorced women and former separated girlfriends - the right to claim residence in the home of their former husband or their former partner even though the Act says they may not have any right, title or beneficial interest in the same. What’s the justification for that?
Renuka Chowdhury:Because the woman is removed from her house. She is threatened, coerced and you have an ex-parte divorce, which has been granted…
Karan Thapar: A divorced woman has a decree, and I cite, granted by a court. She has an alimony granted by a court. A divorce can only happen when a court grants it.
Renuka Chowdhury:No, no certainly not. I cannot accept that every divorce case has been examined in its…
Karan Thapar: A divorced woman has an annulment, a divorced woman has an alimony given by a court - surely the merit (of the case) has been taken into account.
Renuka Chowdhury:No, no, not necessarily. Not necessarily on the merits of the case, not at all.
Karan Thapar: Are you saying the judges are wrong?
Renuka Chowdhury:Maybe.
Karan Thapar: Are you stepping in to correct what judges have done?
Renuka Chowdhury:I am not correcting judges. I am empowering my women to have the right to access the dignity to their life, if they have been denied justice on other foras, if they have been given ex-parte divorce. In the absence of this, they have had no money to go and appeal in a court and they are denied their right, and if the husband suddenly declares he is bankrupt and has not given an alimony.
Karan Thapar: You see my point. You have just qualified the problem by adding six different ifs. Your law, however, doesn’t add any of those ifs. Clause 17 begins with the phrase notwithstanding any other law in operation anywhere else in the country. Despite that divorced women and former girlfriends have a right of claim in the residence of their former partner or former husband. So, none of your ifs qualify, if you had put the ifs into the law I would understand.
Renuka Chowdhury: All right, so?
Karan Thapar: You need to amend it to actually incorporate your position.
Renuka Chowdhury: All right. We will see if the need arises, we will do it. First, let it come into being.
Karan Thapar: It has, on the 26th of October.
Renuka Chowdhury: And rather well, so far we haven’t had any complaints about the misuse of the law.
Karan Thapar: So now you accept, with limited reference to Clause 17, there is need for amendment?
Renuka Chowdhury: There is always need for corrections and amendments in any law as we progress as a society develops and the needs arise. But for one hypothetically - before I reach the bridge and cross it - if you want me to make amendments, I won’t.
Karan Thapar: In other words, let men suffer first, then I will correct the wrong I have done.
Renuka Chowdhury: It is not such a bad idea, except that I have such pity for men.
Karan Thapar: Ms Chowdhury, the great danger of the Domestic Violence Act, which came into force on October 26, is that in the hands of a bad judge and a good prosecuting attorney, it can be used to harass innocent men, to entrap innocent husbands and deny them justice. That’s the danger of the imprecision of the loose wording and the huge ambit of so-called offences included here.
Renuka Chowdhury: All right.
Karan Thapar: You accept?
Renuka Chowdhury: They may be.
Karan Thapar: What do you mean may be?
Renuka Chowdhury: If you are saying so, you are so convinced of it. You won’t even listen to what I have to say.
Karan Thapar: I have been listening to you. You seem to agree with me.
Renuka Chowdhury: I don’t have an agreeable concept of what is listening.
Karan Thapar: But tell me something. If this Act in the hands of a bad judge or a clever prosecuting attorney can inflict injustice on innocent men, does it not need amendment?
Renuka Chowdhury: Mr Karan Thapar, every law in this country is in the hands of a bad judge and a clever prosecutor. It is nothing new or unique, the situation. Hence, when we have bad judges - your words - and clever prosecutors - your words - where do the women of this country take recourse to regarding the situation they live in?
Karan Thapar: But do they need a bad law? That’s the problem. You are adding to the situation of bad judges by giving them a bad law.
Renuka Chowdhury: You are only telling me it’s a bad law for men. It’s not a bad law for women.
Karan Thapar: But that’s only 50% of the Indian population?
Renuka Chowdhury: Yes. But my tragedy is I have women who are no longer even 50 per cent of the population.
Karan Thapar: You really believe you cannot do justice to women without doing injustice to men?
Renuka Chowdhury: I don’t want to do injustice to men.
Karan Thapar: You have just done it.
Renuka Chowdhury: If you see it that way. Isn’t it injustice against women that we have rape laws in place and dowry laws in place and they have never been adhered to, that women are killed every minute?
Karan Thapar: If 98 per cent of the cases brought under the dowry laws, as I told you, turn out to be false - according to statistics given by the Centre for Social Justice - if the Supreme Court itself has opined on the subject roughly at the same time last year, I am sure you don’t need to add to the bad laws by creating more.
Renuka Chowdhury: It’s the courts which have been proactive. The High Court just recently ruled here, saying that for seven years after a woman is married, the family will be held accountable for her death. Why would a court state that extreme order? Do you think that is a fine law? You agree with the opinion of the court?
Karan Thapar: Absolutely. I do. But I am not talking about murder, I am talking about offences that are just limited to sarcasm. I am talking about sarcasm to the step-brother of a former girlfriend covered by this law. That’s why it’s a bad law.
Renuka Chowdhury: Step-brother of a former girlfriend depends on a one-to-one basis. You don’t have to be a relative of a woman for sarcasm. As a citizen if you misbehave with another citizen, under the IPC you can be held up. There is very little that is new in this law.
Karan Thapar: Let me point to you why this is, in fact, a dangerous law that can be misused in the hands of bad judges or clever prosecuting attorney. Clause 4(1) says any person who has reason to believe that an Act of domestic violence has been or is being or is likely to be committed, can inform the authorities with no liability if he or she is wrong. Secondly, at that point of time, a magistrate can impose a protection order that can severely restrain the rights of the accused. You are creating a devilish situation entirely on the basis of mischief-makers and title-tattlers snooping around.
Renuka Chowdhury: Maybe. Maybe initially you will have the title-tattlers, you will have everything. But I also like to believe that maybe you will save so may lives where we know that in-laws are planning to kill them or force her into a Sati death or go for PNDT Act.
Karan Thapar: You may also end up trapping innocent in-laws, because of paramours and other malignant people.
Renuka Chowdhury: “Innocent in-laws” have nothing to worry about. Innocent in-laws live in harmony with their daughters-in-law. There should not be problem.
Karan Thapar: The problem is that mischief-makers create trouble where there is disharmony. And Clause 4(1) permits them.
Renuka Chowdhury: Mischief-makers do create trouble everywhere. It’s mischief-makers who do tell us that women are opiated and forced to commit Sati. It is mischief-makers who report on Income-Tax laws, if you remember, earlier.
Karan Thapar: But you don’t need a law to tackle Sati.
Renuka Chowdhury: Of course, you need a law to tackle Sati.
Karan Thapar: But it’s already a crime in India. We don’t need a new law.
Renuka Chowdhury: Sure. But what is the success ratio? What are your success stories?
Karan Thapar: Let me point out the problem with Clause 4(1). It permits anyone who is inimical to you - leave aside the enemy of yours - to go and mischievously and maliciously report on things he claims you are doing and get away with it. In fact, it even permits your wife’s paramour to turn up and make mischief against you and to do so with impunity.
Renuka Chowdhury: Yeah, but I will tell you something, Karan. It is irrespective of that - these are preventive checks we are putting. Do you think the law is an ass, they will suddenly come and arrest you?
Karan Thapar: I’m afraid this law is an ass. That’s exactly what I am saying. This law is close to close to being an asinine.
Renuka Chowdhury: That’s your opinion. That may be there. But I want to tell you there are very few sections under this law, which are not existing under the IPC.
Karan Thapar: In which case, you didn’t need it. It’s redundant. So why to bring it about?
Renuka Chowdhury: It’s not redundant. Basically, we are empowering the IPC to do it. Delhi has reported that in the last year, 8,000 marital discord cases were reported to the police and there was little the police could do. How do you answer that?
Karan Thapar: Let me ask you one simple question. From Soli Sorabjee to ordinary Indians, there is great concern about the imprecision and dangerous wording and the dangerous ambit of this law. Are you prepared to listen and amend it?
Renuka Chowdhury: Of course. We are prepared in a democracy to listen and respond to a situation that could be an aberration on the societal fabric.
Karan Thapar: But you are going to wait for a situation to happen and then you are going to respond?
Renuka Chowdhury: That doesn’t deny the right for us to bring about a law like this. It is a unmet need and women across the country have not yet protested.
Karan Thapar: You are saying to me that a bad law is better than no law at all?
Renuka Chowdhury: If you want to say it that way. Any law is better than no law at all.
Karan Thapar: Ms Chowdhury, a pleasure talking to you on Devil’s Advocate.
Renuka Chowdhury: Well, thank you. But be careful.

Sachit Dalal
My favourite website :
Read latest News at
Report Dowry Abuse here :
Report Dowry Law Misuse :
Disclaimer : These are my personal views.Your views could be different.