Total Pageviews

Join SIF yahoogroup, get answers..

Join SIF yahoogroup"

Friday, April 20, 2007

I may be the fool here, but let me risk the possibility of being termed just that

Why this Dual Standards? -Why dont we write the laws entirely pandering to women's desires instead. Re:Married woman can live with her lover, says court

Ref:Article in Hindustan Times, dtd.April 19, 2007 ->

Married woman can live with her lover, says court
by KS Tomar, Email Author , Jaipur,

Subject: But really..........Can a married woman lawfully live with her lover against the will of her husband?
(do comment on this subject at )

Hello Everyone,

I may be the fool here, but let me risk the possibility of being termed just that, and yet ask everyone- whether a woman can live with her lover(especially without the consent of her husband!, howmuchever unlikely the possibility of situations to the contrary could be!), while her legal marriage with her husband still exists(will she be legally correct in doing so?. At least isn't a crime of Adultery for her lover?): , excerpt of this is quoted at the bottom of this mail for ready reference).

Its a simple question, which I consciously made so short so that we can start the discussion based on the popular verdict on this.

The secondary question related to whether a married woman can live with her lover, while her legal husband is alive and non-consenting to this scenario, is that, whether a Judge of an Indian court right, in pronouncing that there is nothing wrong (did the learned judge mean that nothing is wrong 'morally'!, is his role to be a love-guru or a culture-vulture or even a purveyor of morality, or , as expected of him, the upholder of justice or at least, in the bargain, the upholder of WRITTEN LAW prevailing in Present India!).

Some observations on the news(this is uploaded at for reference)

The judge may be logically or even morally correct in taking this stance in the above scenario, since the girl, in this case, seem to be not all interested(even before marriage she had this 'thing' going!) in her 'legally-married-to-husband". Moreover her lover seems to be ready to face a possible 'Adultery' case! against him, which is what the IPC 497-Adultery
reads out, but only that the judge is not at all ready to take action against him on grounds of adultery, which is the justifiable behaviour expected out of an Honourable Judge(I am assuming that the detailed judgement really doesn't talk about an action under section 497 ie. Adultery law, already been pressed on the lover)

Why this double standards by the Judiciary!- when a girl does obviously wrongful acts according to the WRITTEN LAW of a country, she gets away with favourable interpretations, hearings and readings of the law. This is ensure even if it requires our Judges to do this by bending over backwards or even winding themselves into unjustifiable coils of Judicial wisdom and interpretations, and "woolly woolly words" for judgements, with a willing 180 degree spin-doctoring by the Judiciary , only when the party concerned is a woman(along with her paramour, intact, at her heels). I am not at all justifying the girl's husband, I am just focusing on the courts lenience towards her, which is just the summary of many a case in India, a blatant Gender-Skew!.

Meanwhile when men live by the law, they are treated Guilty until proven innocent(by his own effort, ie. burden of proof solely on himself), yes I am referring to the misuse of gender-biased-skewed laws like IPC 498a and Domestic Violence Act , etc.. If in the legal interpretation of our judges men always have a propensity to do 'bad', and thats why they need to give some 'headstart' to women by ruling in favour of them!, why don't they change the 'WRITTEN LAW ' , so that at least men do not have the ignominy of living with a
non-enforceable Indian Penal Code with respect to men, by and large!.

So the Questions once again are:

1. Whether a married woman can live with her lover, while her legal husband is alive and non-consenting to this scenario(this has reference to the validity of the Adultery law ie IPC 497, as it stands now!)- will she be legally correct in doing so

2. With respect to the above scenario, whether a Judge of an Indian court right in pronouncing that there is nothing wrong on the part of the lady or her lover.- Is the Judge legally correct in doing so

Reference: Indian Penal Code, Section 497. Adultery

Whoever has sexual intercourse with a person who is and whom he knows
or has reason to believe to be the wife of another man, without the consent or connivance of that man, such sexual intercourse not amounting to the offence of
rape, is guilty of the offence of adultery, and shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine, or with both. In such case the wife shall be punishable as an abettor
.(->Interpretation, the Girl is not an
offender of any law in this case, not even a co-accused!)

On 4/19/07, ramdama dam wrote: a married woman lawfully live with her lover against the will of her husband? The Rajasthan High Court says yes. In a judgment on Wednesday, the court allowed a married woman, Manju, to live with her lover, Suresh. "It is improper to pass an order to hand over any unwilling married woman to her husband with whom she does not want to stay," said justices GS Mishra and KC Sharma. The court also said that nobody should consider an adult woman as a consumer product. While dismissing a habeas corpus petition filed by Manju's husband, the court came down hard on the misuse of habeas corpus petitions by people who want to thrust their will upon adult women without their consent. The court said the husband was free to approach the family court for divorce. Commenting on the judgment, senior Supreme Court advocate and noted women's rights activist Indira Jaising said, "Though it sounds strange, I am in complete agreement with the high court." "At the end of the day an adult woman has a right to decide whom she wants to live with. She can't be forced to go with her husband against her will," Jaising said. In this case, Jaising said, it is clear that the woman was prepared for divorce. She also felt that Manju's husband had abused the habeas corpus petition because such petitions were generally filed when somebody is actually missing. Asked whether it amounted to adultery, Jaising clarified that the woman could not be prosecuted for this offence under the law. As for the other man, she said, "it seems he is ready to face that". National Commission for Women Chairperson Girija Vyas said that although it seemed like an important judgment, she could not comment on it since she had not seen it yet. Manoj Chaudhry, the counsel for Manju and Suresh, had earlier rejected as baseless the allegations that Manju had been kept in illegal confinement by Suresh. He said that the duo had been living together by their free will and that the relationship had begun even before Manju had got married. With inputs from Satya Prakash and Sutirtho Patranobis.

. All India Helpline Number: 91-92434 73794 (24 Hours)Alternate Nos : 91-9810611534 or 080-65334135 Volunteer Helpline Numbers (limited contact hours)--------------------------------------------------------------- Delhi: Ashish : 9911119113, Swarup : 9810611534 Rajiv :9891369616 Bangalore: 80-65334135 Kolkata : 033-25347398/25217318 Mumbai: 9224335577 / 9869323538 Ahmadabad:9825365816

Saturday, April 07, 2007

RADAR's lobbying against International Violence Against Women Act

Email from RADAR.........

All –

We have now finalized our letter to Senators Biden and Lugar – see below and attached to this message -- and our letter now has 37 co-signers from 10 countries – what an accomplishment! Thanks to all!

This is our game plan: Republican Senator Lugar is still on the fence. If we can persuade him to not support I-VAWA, the chances are very good we can stop this dangerous bill.

This coming week, we want to ask you and the members of your group to contact Senator Lugar. So today, please advise your members that the BIG PUSH will be this coming week. We want to ask your members to e-mail, telephone, and/or send a fax to Senator Lugar.

Here’s his contact information:
Phone: +1-202-224-4814 FAX: +1-202-228-0360

The message should be simple, polite, and short – something like:

“Senator Lugar, please do not support the International Violence Against Women Act. I-VAWA would be harmful to families, children, women, and men.”
Remember that we succeeded last fall at the United Nations. We can do it again.



Open Letter to Senators Joseph Biden and Richard Lugar
Regarding the International Violence Against Women Act

April 13, 2007

Dear Senators Biden and Lugar:

Domestic violence is an important social problem. Around the world, research conclusively shows that women are at least as likely as men to engage in partner abuse.[1]

In recent years, several countries have passed laws designed to stop partner abuse. One of the major reasons these laws have failed to stop domestic violence is because they have not provided needed services to female abusers.

In addition, these laws have resulted in widespread civil rights violations of persons falsely accused of abuse. These are some examples:

· In Australia the federal government has run advertising campaigns that falsely portray only men as perpetrators. Refuge (shelter) services are provided exclusively for women. Anger management services are available for men, yet there are none for violent women. One Auditor General report found that only 9% of restraining orders that are granted based solely on the assertions of the “victim” are found to be legitimate and continued when the alleged perpetrator is able to give their side of the story.[2] In Tasmania , the Family Violence Act of 2004 defines both economic and emotional abuse as criminal offenses.
· In Canada, the domestic violence laws are systemically applied on a gender discriminatory basis, as a result of federal and local legislation, regulation, and enforcement policies. "This is contrary not only to Section 15 of the Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms but to international conventions such as Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Articles 2 and 26 of the International Convention on Civil and Political Rights."
· In Germany, the Force Law (“Gewaltschutzgesetz”) allows alleged aggressors to be expelled from their residence for up to 14 days while ignoring the presumption of innocence. Michael Bock, professor of criminology at the University of Mainz, commented that the Gewaltschutzgesetz “gives an effective tool to the hands of mothers who want to separate children from their fathers. ... It is not meant to start a constructive dialog between the parties, but to expropriate, disempower, lock out, and punish men.”
· India enacted its Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act in 2005, which defines domestic “violence” broadly to include any form of physical, emotional, or economic abuse. False allegations of abuse have now become common, resulting in many husbands taking their own lives.[3] The Cruelty Against Women Law “Section 498a” has been widely abused leading to arrests of innocent elders and women. The Indian Supreme Court has termed this as “legal terrorism.”[4]
· In Mexico, the domestic violence law came into effect in February of this year. Under the law, men found guilty of being jealous or even sexual indifferent to their wives could face up to five years in prison.[5]
· New Zealand passed its Domestic Violence Act in 1996. As a result, according to Casandra Hewitt-Reid, “it is possible for a perfectly innocent man, who has done nothing outside the law, to be sent to prison on one person’s unsubstantiated word.”[6] Recently, two top researchers accused the New Zealand Families Commission of “ideologically driven” bias in its portrayal of domestic violence.[7]
· Spain passed its Integral Law on Gender Violence in 2004. Recently the Dean Judge of Barcelona Maria Sanahuja criticized the Law, saying it has brought about the “massive detention of men for scarcely any reason” which she condemns as “a repugnant violation of fundamental rights.”[8] Following implementation of the law, the number of intimate partner homicides of both men and women increased.[9]

It has come to our attention that consideration is being given to an “International Violence Against Women Act.” This bill is based on a flawed World Health Organization survey that neglected to survey men and therefore failed to reveal the extent of female violence. Based on descriptions of I-VAWA, [10] we believe that passage of this bill would not only fail to stop partner abuse, it would also inflict serious and lasting harm to families and children around the world.

We, the undersigned organizations throughout the world, strongly urge you to speak against the International Violence Against Women Act.


Tony Miller
Dads in Distress, Inc.

James Adams

Brett KessnerMen’s Confraternity

Sue Price
Men’s Rights Agency

Edward Dabrowski
Shared Parenting Council of Australia

Georges Dupuy
Coalition pour la Défense des Droits des Hommes du Québec

Earl Silverman
Family of Men

Kris Titus
Fathers-4-Justice Canada

Daniel Laforest
Fathers-4-Justice Québec

Brian Jenkins
Fathers Are Capable Too: Parenting Association

Lise Bilodeau
L’Action des Nouvelles Conjointes du Québec

Jean-Claude Boucher
L'après-Rupture, Inc.

Brian Johnson
Regina Shared Parenting Network

John F. Smith
World Father’s Union

Czech Republic:
Eduard Bakalar
Consultancy for Divorcing Parents with Children

Jiri Vodicka
PVVP - Real Equality

Jiri Solc
Cesky Svaz Muzu

Lubos Patera
Spravedlnost Detem

Dietmar Albers
DAS Familienrecht

Dr. Eugen Maus
MANNdat e.V.

B.S. Saraswathi
Asha Kiran

P.R.Gokul Protect Indian Family Foundation

Uma Challa
Save Indian Family Foundation

Mary T. Cleary
AMEN – Abused Men

Nora Bennis
Mothers At Home

Roger Eldridge National Men’s Council of Ireland

Ad Verdiesen
DivorcedDads/Family4 Justice-Netherlands

Th. M. Nieuwenhuizen Netherlands Foundation for Parents without Access

New Zealand:
Jim Bailey
Hands on Equal Parents

John Potter
Masculinist Evolution New Zealand

Antonio Luengo
Asociacion para el Estudio del Maltrato y el Abuso

Antonio Javier Morcillo y Martínez
Grupo de Estudios - Padres e Hijos

United Kingdom:
Erin Pizzey
International Founder of Refuges (Shelters) for Victims of Domestic Violence

John Bannon

Artur J. N. Oborski
Families Against Rough Treatment

David Hughes
ManKind Initiative

Anne Harris
St. Neots Abuse Project (SNAP)

[6] .