Live-in partners splits, woman files false criminal case against partner

Just how easy is it for women to exploit and abuse the Indian laws and judicial process has become evident once more in yet another false case!!
This lady entered into a live-in relationship while studying in UK. Subsequently, she delivers a baby in 2009 in UK.
Next, with intentions to extort from the guy, she files complaints against him with charges of domestic violence and rape while in UK itself.
It is very much evident that these were false complaints as these were filed about the 1 year after the birth of their child. But unlike Indian processes, the UK processes are lesser blind, and she had to herself withdraw all the allegations by signing an affidavit.


After some more time the couple returns India and go their separate ways. Now, this woman how much this woman is empowered in INDIA owing to the "Kannoon andha hota hai" (Law is blind) philosophy, and realizing she can extort good amount using (abusing) the Indian judicial processes, she goes ahead and files false criminal cases of IPC 498a, not one but two cases!!!


She wants money, uninterrupted and unquestioned custody of the child which is already with her and on top of that maintenance as well!!

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/-Live-in-couple-splits-Is-man-liable-to-pay-for-kids-upkeep/articleshow/5720076.cms
TNN, Mar 25, 2010


NEW DELHI: After throwing its weight behind live-in relationships saying there is no illegality if two adults live together, the Supreme Court is facing a difficult emotional fallout of it. 

What if two adults decide to live together in a foreign country, share an apartment and have a child and when they come back, the man goes away saying he had no formal relationship with the woman and hence was not liable to her and the child's maintenance? 

This question has cropped up before the Supreme Court, which has stayed proceedings initiated by a woman under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code in Gujarat. But realising the sensitivity of the issues involved, it posted the case for hearing on May 7. 

The case is between Japmandeep and Rajshri. He went to London on a student visa in March 2003 to do post-graduation in information technology from London College of Management and IT. There he met Rajshri, who was pursuing her masters in IT since October 2002. According to Japmandeep, "they became friends and in October 2003 started sharing the same apartment". 

"We shared an apartment in UK, but no religious ceremony for performing marriage took place in London nor did we register any civil partnership as is required under the law of UK. As per UK law, no relationship between the parties exist unless the formalities required under the law of UK are complied with," Japmandeep said in his petition before the SC seeking quashing of the proceedings initiated by his erstwhile live-in partner. 

But there was not a word by the man that a child was born to them in 2005 in UK. After staying the proceedings, the SC issued notice to Rajshri, who in her response submitted documents, including the birth certificate of the child from UK. 

The birth certificate showed that the child was born to Japmandeep Singh Ahluwalia and Rajshri Ahluwalia on November 9, 2005, at Wexham Park Hospital, Slough. A copy of the passport annexed to the reply filed in the SC through lawyer H A Raichura also gave identical description of the child's parents. 

To falsify Rajshri's claim that she was married to him, Japmandeep stated in his petition filed through counsel J S Chhabra that she on October 10, 2006, had made a complaint about domestic violence and rape against him to UK authorities. "However, on December 8, 2006, the complainant withdrew all the allegations levelled against him and signed a statutory declaration in the form of an affidavit before the oath commissioner in England that all the allegations regarding domestic violence, rape and dowry were false and untrue," Japmandeep said. 

But after they reached India on August 29, 2008, Rajshri left for her home in Gujarat and Japmandeep went to Patiala, where his parents lived. "All the communication which have taken place in the year 2008, between Rajshri and Department of Home Office, UK, she was addressed as Rajshri Ben Vijay Kumar Kesri and Japmandeep was addressed as her partner and not her husband," he said in his defence. 

Rajshri initiated proceedings under Section 498A at Patiala and Ahmedabad, and both have been stayed by higher courts — one by Punjab and Haryana HC and the other by SC. However, Rajshri in her response to the apex court expressed willingness to compromise with Japmandeep allowing him to contract fresh marriage provided he returns the money, ornaments and certificates he owed to her, the 4-year-old son remains with her and pays a lumpsum amount to her for maintenance. 

Woman hides income, claims maintenance

Maintenance claim from Husband - One of the typical cases which does rounds of the courts during matrimonial disputes.

In most of such maintenance proceedings, women hide their sources and quantum of income with intentions to extort maximum maintenance amount from Husband.

This is a routine procedure where judges without caring is a woman is able-bodied or not, can maintain herself or not, order maintenance and make husband go thru "legal extortion"

Claiming maintenance, or in other words EARLY RETIREMENT BENEFITS, has almost become automatic for women by just filing CrPC 125/DV/HAMA etc. Pleas or arguments forwarded by husbands are overlooked altogether.

This man had to resort such a sting operation as a last resort to prove that his wife is working. He was plain lucky and could afford to do such a sting, while there are several others who do no have means or access to do the same.

Another point to note here is that even after such a sting operation, and after knowing that this wife lied on oath, the judge did not proceed with any "suo moto" proceedings against wife for lying on oath!!
Nor the maintenance was denied to the wife. The judge just reduced the portion of BENEFITs she could claim from the husband!!

पत्नी को कमाऊ साबित करने को कराया स्टिंग

May 23, 02:22 am

http://in.jagran.yahoo.com/news/local/delhi/4_3_6433405/

नई दिल्ली, जागरण संवाददाता : एक पति ने गुजारा भत्ता देने से बचने और पत्नी को कामकाजी साबित करने के लिए उसका स्टिंग करवा लिया। जब कोर्ट ने सीडी में देखा कि पत्नी किसी ब्यूटी पार्लर में काम करती है और 2500 रुपये मासिक कमा रही है, तो दंडाधिकारी कोर्ट द्वारा दिए गुजारे भत्तो की राशि को चार हजार रुपये से घटाकर दो हजार रुपये कर दिया। कोर्ट ने कहा कि हालांकि सेशन कोर्ट आमतौर पर इन मामलों में दंडाधिकारी कोर्ट द्वारा दिए आदेश में हस्तक्षेप नहीं करती है, परंतु अर्जी दायर करने वाले सुनील की पत्नी सुनीता ने दंडाधिकारी कोर्ट के समक्ष खुद को बेरोजगार बताया था, जबकि कोर्ट के सामने पेश सीडी में वह खुद मान रही है कि वह पार्लर में काम कर रही है और 2500 रुपये प्रतिमाह कमा रही है। हालांकि वह घरेलू हिंसा का शिकार हुई है, इसलिए गुजारा भत्ता पाने की हकदार है। परंतु उसकी आय के स्रोत को देखते हुए उसके गुजारे भत्तो की राशि को कम किया जा रहा है।फरीदाबाद निवासी सुनील का विवाह महरौली निवासी सुनीता से हुआ था। दहेज की मांग और ससुराल वालों के खराब व्यवहार के चलते सुनीता ने अक्टूबर 2003 से पति से अलग रहना शुरू कर दिया। सुनीता द्वारा दायर अर्जी पर 22 जनवरी को दंडाधिकारी कोर्ट ने चार हजार रुपये गुजारा भत्ता देने का आदेश दिया था। जिसे सुनील ने सेशन कोर्ट में चुनौती दी थी और कहा था कि उसकी पत्नी भी काम करती है। इसलिए वह इसकी हकदार नहीं है।

Divorcee Woman files frivolous suit against ex-husband for maintenance

Harassing the husbands legally by misusing laws is a favorite time-pass for wives. They go to the extent to:

1. Lie on oath
2. Deviate from their own statements made as part of agreement
3. File cases to extort more for love for money
4. Harass husbands by initiating multiple legal proceedings at multiple locations

The present news item brings to light one such law misuser

Divorcee claims maintenance, court raps her for contempt

New Delhi, Jan 25

The Delhi High Court Monday slapped a fine on a woman for contempt, taking serious note of the fact that she had concealed she was employed and continued to claim maintenance from her husband, and filed cases against him despite an undertaking to court.
Justice S.N. Dhingra slapped a fine of Rs.10,000 on Manjit Kaur for concealing the facts from the court and violating the undertaking she gave in another court in Jalandhar that following her divorce she will not file any case against her husband after settlement.
"Where a person after concealing the material facts about her own employment and about the undertaking given to the court, files an application for maintenance just to harass the opposite side (husband), this amounts to violation of undertaking given by her," the judge said.
The court was hearing her husband Gurbinder Singh who had filed a contempt case against his estranged wife for filing cases against him.
The court also took note of the fact that the woman was working as a teacher in a school in Jalandhar but did not disclose it before the court and claimed maintenance of Rs.3,000 per month.
Despite a final settlement between the two in 2000, the woman filed petitions against her husband and violated the undertaking that she will not harass him or his family members.
The court directed the woman to seek maintenance for herself after her retirement from her present job, and said, "Claim maintenance after disclosing pension and other income and properties to the court which she holds in Delhi or at other places."