Can husband's mother file a dv against her son wife?

WELCOME BACK PAPAJI...MUJHE MALUM THA....NINA GAYEE TO AAP AYENGE....AAPKA SAB MEHNAT BEKAR GAYA(FACIAL, LLOREAL....NEW PHOTO)...USNE AAPKO EK BAR BHI YAAD NEHI KIYA...

Filing false case by any one against any one is not advisable.

Whether MIL can file a case against DIL? Yes.

But the cases MIL can file against the DIL varying keeping the condition of MIL  into consideration.  I mean, if MIL is a widow and is living with the son against whose wife she is proposing to file DV case, it is maintainable.

DV act can be studied from the perspective of the relief what you are seeking.  An MIL having livng husband  (exception is that if the husband is handicapped and not in a position to maintain her) cannot ask maintenance from her son.  Similarly, she cannot ask residential rights when her husband is living.  Recovery of Stridhan does not arise from the son.  Recovery of compensation for children's education, medical expenses also does not arise.  All these can be recoverable from her husband.   But she can ask monetary compensation from her daughter in law for the physical and mental cruelty she received if she has been abused or illtreated physically and mentally directly by DIL.

But in the case of widow MIL all the reliefs - maintenance, residential rights (even though she does not have any property rights) are available, protection orders and compensation for her medical expenses can be claimed  from her son but joining DIL as co-respondent.  Believe me, there are several instances where aged and widowed MILs are inhumanely treated by their own sons and DILs.  DV Act comes to their rescue.  Similar is the case in respect of Sister-in-law.  For varied reasons if SIL could not get married and is unemployed and father is deceased, she faces innumerable difficulties living with brother's family and there are several instances, where domestic violence of mental and physical both are perpetrated against her.  She is entitled to seek the protection from this Act.    

On this forum, I quite often see that DV has been made fun of,  read over and interpreted very wrongly with ulterior motive by some mad people with indecent vocabulary.  The visitors of this forum are really deprived of understanding the DV Act in proper perspective.  Often it has been misled that this is a  criminal law as the cases are being presided by magistrate and there is a provision to put offender into imprisonment when protection orders are violated.  All these interpretations are wrong.  The Act has been enacted to protect the rights of women, whatever status they have in the family- MIL, DIL, Daughter, Sister etc.

@ Chandu Sir - Filing false case by any one against any one is not advisable. - 100% agreed and ideally should not be the used. But sir, if the other & the so called better half has misused and is trying to fix somebody and infact everybody (including MIL, BIL, SIL, FIL) even if they do not have any concern, then what to do? Even in Mahabharat, Lord Shri Krishna has advised Arjun to use shikhandi for defeating the unconquerable Pitamah Bhishma. Here a husband's mother is not using DV to harass her son, but she is just trying to save her son from some damage if not completely. Again, I agree it is not an ethical practice or should be advised, but then what respite does a husband have. Trust me..... the more misuse of 498a/DV/125, the more dangerous and innovative ideas would float within the suffering community. BTW, these funky ideas have started coming from people sitting outside lower courts (district & sessions) in smaller cities. Visit Bihar, UP and you will know the reality ......Go to any court over there and you will feel filing 498a is the easiest thing and the most advised practice (must say a first aid kit for any woman approaching for any complain). I was simply amazed by a gentleman who was advising about the benefits of 498a to a woman who approached him  for a very silly issue. Later I enquired and found that Sir is a specialist for motoring law offences and defence. So this is how it is practically going ....

Please note these are personal observations/experiences not meant to offend anyone's view.

Regards,

Rohit

Arupji is back to lci...kaash arunkumarji bhi aa jate lci me to kaya mahol hota...

Ld member Chandu!

Plz elaborate for the benefit of all, how this interpretation is wrong!

Thanx

DV Act is a civil law and not criminal law.  This proposition can be substantiated by the following reasons:

1. Read para 2 and 3 of the Statement of objects and reasons placed before the parliament:

"2.  The phenomenon of domestic violence is widely prevalent but has remained largely invisible in the public domain.  Presently, where a woman is subjected to cruelty by her husband or his relatives, t is an offence under section 498 A of the Indian Penal Code.  The civil law does not however address this phenomenon in its entirety.

3.  It is, therefore, proposed to enact a law keeping in view the rights guaranteed under articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution to provide for a remedy under the civil law which is intended to protect the woman from being victims of domestic violence and to prevent the occurance of domestic violence in the society."

By above objects, there should be no doubt that the Parliament enacted a Civil law and not criminal law.

2.  In criminal law, invariably the "State" is the aggrieved party.  You see, any case under IPC, TADA, POTA, COFEPOSA, PD Act, Dowry Prohibition Act etc., which are criminal laws,  the cases run between the "State Versus Accused".  But in DV cases the title is always between "Mrs. X Versus Mr. X" and the State does not involve in it, so it is Civl law.  Mrs. X appoints her own advocate and gets legal aid advocate and prosecution does not present on behalf of Mrs. X.  But in all criminal cases, the State is represented by Prosecution and if the complainant /prosecutrix wants to represent by his/her own counsel, a specific permission has to be obtained from the court.  Here also, the counsel for prosecutrix/complainant can only assist the prosecutor and cannot directly intervene in the court proceedings, either cross examination of accused or presenting the arguments.    

3.  In DV case, the  parties are described as - "Applicant Versus Respondent" and not "State Vesus Accused" as in Criminal law.

4.  In DV cases, respondent can abstain himself  without applying for "personal exemption" and he can be represented by his counsel, where as in criminal cases, the accused shall invariably appear or move an application for personal exemption.

5.  In DV cases, if the respondent does not appear, bailable or non-bailable arrest warrants are not issue but orders are passed ex-parte. That is not the procedure in criminal law.

6.  All the remedies availabe In DV cases were already made available to the wife under different civl laws.  In other words, if the DV Act had not been passed, the wife could have got the reliefs by invoking various civil laws.  The benefit of passing DV Act is, the remedy can be quickly obtained by invoking criminal law Procedure.

7.  DV Act says that violation of protection order is an Offence.  Breach of protection order attracts one year imprisonment.  This provision, itself, cannot take the DV Act from the category of Civil law and put it in the category of Criminal law.   In various civil laws, there are provisions for putting the offenders behind bar, but they are not treated as criminal laws for the existence of such provision.  Refer to MACT Act, Rent control Acts, Income Tax Laws, School Education Acts, Industrial disputes Act, Payment of Wages Act, Minimum Wages Act etc.   All these are civil laws, but have provisions of imprisonment to the offenders of the Act. 

WHY SOME PONGA PUNDITS DECLARE DV ACT AS CRIMINAL LAW?

They are anti-women.  They are hurt by their own wives.  Instead of finding fault with their own wife, they develop hatred against the entire female gender.  They respect only their mothers, sisters and daughters but use abusive language against every other woman which included our mothers, sisters, wife and daughters.  These people are mad in medical terms and sick human beings in social terms. They lost the vision to see, read and perceive the things impartially.  So they come on the forum to spread false propaganda.  

Advo Chandu Bro! U have explained well, with needed emphasis!

So, things are back to square one n carry home message is:-

DV ACT IS A CIVIL CASE, BUT WHEN PROTECTION ORDERS ARE BREACHED, IT TAKES CRIMINAL COLOR!

AGREED?

I think there is enough venom already on LCI, more dose from such a Ld member like u, apart from law points is not expected, chill!

"

They are anti-women.  They are hurt by their own wives.  Instead of finding fault with their own wife, they develop hatred against the entire female gender.  They respect only their mothers, sisters and daughters but use abusive language against every other woman which included our mothers, sisters, wife and daughters.  These people are mad in medical terms and sick human beings in social terms. They lost the vision to see, read and perceive the things impartially.  So they come on the forum to spread false propaganda.  

"

@ Chandu


I am making a rebut without duplicating my earlier writings on subject (DV Act, 2005) least you get more sleepless nites from me and rush to fetch a Urban Dictionary in search of thesaurus for name calling - ponga pandit J

Here is piece of legal history first;


Rule of the Thumb

Historically ours has been a patriarchal society where physical abuse was not looked upon as an evil, it was to some extent even considered a right of the man to ‘discipline’ the woman and children. This was not limited to the Indian society. The English Common Law, this is very

interesting and I am quite surprised, had a rule of thumb as a criterion for measuring domestic abuse. The “rule” authorized a husband to beat his wife with any reasonable instrument, including a rod not thicker than his thumb. The rule found its way into American Common Law in the first half of the 19th century. In 1824, the Mississippi Supreme Court held that authorities could not subject a husband to assault and battery charges if he compiled with the “rule of thumb” standard. (Bradley v. Sate, 2 Miss.156, 157 (1824). This is but a small example of the laws that were framed earlier which to some extent further encouraged domestic abuse. This serious problem of domestic violence has to be addressed by the society as a whole. In India we have seen the Constitution recognizing the rights of women and attempt to address this menace which is prevalent in a big way.

The NDA Government had introduced in the 13th Lok Sabha, a bill on the subject on 8th March 2002. The Bill however lapsed on the dissolution of the 13th Lok Sabha in February 2004. On the UPA Government assuming office, the Department of Women and Child Development re-examined the provisions of the said bill in the light of the concerns expressed by women’s rights groups and introduced a new bill in the 14th Lok Sabha on 22nd August 2005. The Bill was passed by the Lok Sabha on 24th August and by the Rajya Sabha on 29th August. It received the assent of the President on 13th September. Thus the “Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005”, after a protracted struggle finally came into force with effect from 26th October 2006. This has been of course because of the effort of women’s movement and Ms. Indira Jaising. Now be it known I somehow like her humongous efforts to get this legislated more than your implementation theories in practice.

Having made you briefly warmed let me take you to core discussion now on your lecture to me on the Act, 2005 being 'fastest' as Concorde Jet Act for women victims and name calling me and here are my traditional style rebuttals (you want to read The Act, 2005 wholly or not and get struck to Object and Intent first page only is not my issue now);

Ms Nirja Bhatia, Judge to NW Delhi was the first Judge in Delhi who issued notice to State

Government and got 16 officers (PO's) for the North-West district way back in 2007 just after 4 months of DV Act Gazette notification. It is a fact that not a single complaint till date has come through an NGO to any of the Courts hearing DV Act in Delhi and its NCR ! Does this not surprise you of its being fastest for much waited relief a wife craves for reeling under DV?

A provision has been incorporated in S. 20 (4) of the statute (Act, 2005) which requires the

magistrate to send a copy of the order for monetary relief to the In-Charge of the police station within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the respondent resides. Now again Chandu has to educate me and the other readers here as to why an order granting monetary relief has to be communicated to the SHO of the police station?. He has no power under S. 20 Ss 4 (the Act, 2005), he has no power of enforcement !. An FIR is registered and then informed to the magistrate but this statute requires an order which is passed has to be sent to the SHO, well we all know that they (police) are unable to perform the normal function and I do not see what the need is other than giving him one more clout of doing what they do otherwise in the husband’s hand. So there goes to trash your 'fastest relief theory'.

Now some of the Orders that are postulated are extremely difficult to execute or to maintain a vigil over, say an Order of non-communication that you will not get in touch with your spouse is extremely difficult to enforce. For instance, under S. 18  (The Act, 2005) a Magistrate is empowered to prohibit the respondent from attempting to communicate in any form with the aggrieved person. I mean readers will Chandu make himself volunteer to sit as guardian on behalf of all aggrieved victim / applicant qua Delhi victims' homes to see it implemented and or violated whatever the scenario develops in days to come !

One area which Chandu must keep in mind while delivering his 20 years old experienced as ld. brother shortchange sharing of knowledge to me which is going to provide so much difficulty to the judges who deal with these cases is that, S. 31 (The Act, 2005) says a breach of an order shall be an offence which is punishable with imprisonment extending to one year. At the same time under S. 31 (3) (The Act, 2005) the magistrate has been empowered to frame charges under S. 498 A of the IPC or any offence under the Dowry Prohibition Act.

You have made this as an offence under S. 32 as "cognizable and non-bailable". Now there is a direct conflict here, an offence which is punishable with imprisonment for one year is called in criminal law as a summon case. I hope you recall your legal studies and may understand the major difference between summon and summary case or you want me to educate you this after 20 years of your practice !

The procedure for trying such an offence is totally different from trying a case under S. 498A of the IPC. You see there is this glaring lacunae in this legislation on which every prosecution will be stayed as to what procedure the magistrate is to adopt. Hence there goes another chance of its Concorde speed to grant relief to aggrieved person / applicant.

Now see again S. 27 (The Act, 2005) enables the magistrate to pass an order beyond the local limits to which his / her jurisdiction is confined. Now who is to implement such an order? The legislation is totally silent, it could have been resolved in a very simple manner; such an order may be treated as a precept for a transfer. This may cause difficulty in enforcing orders which may be passed especially in matters involving immoveable properties located in a state other than the state where the court seized with the complaint is located. You may be practicing in Delhi from last 20 years and may have handled 100's of DV cases by now but do disclose before readers in how many cases you yourself faced implementation in intra - State problems?. So there goes your best bet of this Act being "fastest" relief Act, 2005 as left and right being pushed before many female queries here.

The statute is also silent as to the evidentiary value which is to be attached to the reports given by such officer or the mode of their proof. For instance the Land Acquisition Act says the sale deed of is read as an evidence. So what is the evidentiary value of the report of the Protection Officer?

This is important when the judge has to access the material at the end of the trial and give an order of final relief. This issue may not be important for interim orders when the judge is only arriving at a prima facie view. Would your female client now is not struck forever against a smart respondent ld. brother advocate at culmination stage of proceedings under DV Act also recall this is just a baby Act of 4 years old so many cases are today probably have reached at final stage!

Under S. 26 of the statute 2005, a relief which has been made available under S’s 18, 19, 20, 21, 22  (The Act, 2005) may also be sought in any pending legal proceedings before a civil, family or criminal court.  Now you may know that a High court judge may be called upon to adjudicate proceedings for maintenance under the Hindu Maintenance and Adoption Act. A family court is presided over by a District or an Adl. District Judge. The only provision of appeal provided in the statute is under S. 29 of the Act which says that an appeal will lie in the Court of Sessions only with the orders of the magistrate. The Act 2005 is totally silent as to where an appeal will lie against orders passed by any other court, per se under the Hindu Maintenance and Adoption Act or an ADJ under the Guardian and Wards Act or under the Hindu Marriage Act wherein such an application is made in a pending case in other proceedings. Keep thinking where to park museum piece Concorde now.

Then there is an issue as to whether a Writ Court to be availed or whether you have to file an Appeal?. Now again we have to look at the drastic powers conferred on the magistrate. The Guardian and Wards Act very carefully confers certain powers and carves out a jurisdiction conferring certain judicial powers only to the magistrate and cases there under are entrusted to the Distt. Judge or to his delegates who are judicial officers of the rank of Addl. Distt. Judge. Now so far as this law is concerned all powers are conferred upon a magistrate. The Guardian and Wards Act requires a detailed enquiry before a Court and clear finding by a judge as to an order being made purely in the welfare and interest of the child.

Also from the reading of The Act 2005 it shows that it has non-obstante provision in several

Sections. The provision of S. 21 contains a non-obstante clause which enables the magistrate to exercise jurisdiction and pass orders which could result in conflict with the orders passed by any other court. So far as procedure is concerned, we call it a civil legislation but it is absolutely clear that the Code of Civil Procedure is not applicable to proceedings under this Statue. It says that procedure under criminal procedure will apply at several places. Therefore there is grave possibility of conflict of jurisdiction and judgment in the event that a Civil Court is seized of the matter or has decided a matter relating to issues which are also raised in parallel proceedings before a magistrate under the PWDV Act, 2005. For instance a case of custody under the Guardianship Act and a similar petition filed before the magistrate, there is no provision as to which proceedings the litigants is required to adopt, whether she will proceed with the application under this Act or she has a right to continue in the earlier proceedings. This Act has a non-obstante clause that says not withstanding any Act enforce, the provision of the Act will take force.

You need to look at these issues before some stay are given in some court on good legal ground and certainly these are issues not based on any biases against the statute but this is presumptions (my gyan) as to what you need to look at and address before changing gear and calling writers left and right 'ponga pandit', common Chandu 20 years in legal profession and this much you come up against me, it really disappointed my 8 years spent in same line.

Hope you also know that The Amendments Act of 2005 has introduced the concept of plea bargaining in India under Chapter XXIA of the CrPC. However, the statutory Amendment specifically states that the plea bargaining is not applicable in cases of offence against women and children below the age of 14 years under S. 265 A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Now go and read again DV Act the Offences under DV Act are cognizable it says. So there your client and opponent goes for a full toss when such times comes.

We all know by now that the provisions of S. 125 CrPC do not provide that we would be giving maintenance to step children. Here in this Act 2005, step children have been included in the definition of child. So probably step child in these cases would be entitled for relief from the father. So inference can be drawn to the extent that he can seek relief from the step father. I am holding my last breadth to see our forth generation to use THIS BEAUTY / cleaver drafting wordings in Act, 2005.

Besides that, one of the provisions says that where monetary reliefs are to be accorded, relief under S. 125 will also be seen. Rules (under DV Rules) that are appended to the Act, under Rule 6 (5) (of The Act, 2005) provide that applications under S. 12 (The Act, 2005) are to be proceeded according to the procedure that is similar to that of S 125 CrPC. So ld. brother Chandu in such cases, the relief of maintenance is available to the complainant of aggrieved person would be under S. 125. We already have S. 24 of HMA where there is matrimony, S. 18 of the HAMA and this is a new provision which is enacted for the benefit of women. Now if we see practically, the income from where a Judge (hearing a DV case)  have to make an assessment for the purposes of grant of maintenance is going to be the same. Now supposedly, if all four authorities grant little relief in all such provisions (which is not that we do not hear daily in Court when a wife files multiple maint. application curtsey so called legal advise !), what will actually happen is that to some extent there will be conflict which should be considered in our discussion here while looking at all other aspects before name calling. Let us wait for maturity age of the Act, 2005 to hear such funny outcomes / pronouncement by some or the other Court pan India.

The Act 2005 contains no provisions for compounding but this was the prime argument against S. 498A that it be made cognizable and compoundable which I know you will never agree to but that is not my issue here. Now do you recall this issue went up to the Supreme Court repeatedly and courts have devised the methods whereby S. 498 A offences are being compounded !. AP State is one recent glaring example before us where if my recollection serves best at this moment then all A2 onwards can go free except A1. In my neutral opinion it is extreme injustice if the woman is willing and wants to go back despite her making a complaint and her-in laws are willing to take her back. But I would be reluctant to do so as long as the complaint under DVA ct is pending. You see brother many women are deprived of a very important statutory benefit. Rapprochement and compromise which is the need of matter, is not permitted by this legislation. Now you see how a ponga pandit interprets our law in correct perspective J  

The issues which I pointed out above, all raise questions which if argued at great length by either side and may become cause of prolonged judicial debate in courts, thereby delaying adjudication on the real complaints of the parties. Consequently, in my view, these areas require to be addressed immediately and care requires to be taken to ensure that the purpose of the statute is not lost in legal wrangles. And yet your 20 years wisdom says it is fastest zip–zap - wam-damn piece of legislation for protecting rights of women and in same breadth you also say in your comment to me that same rights are available to a women in other statutes ! I mean where we going in a public debate man. Common if I invite two time pass women writers here in LCI whose English (means legal understanding not language) I found weak they will give a better layman’s rebuttal to you than what is being expressed in legal language by a ponga pandit here.

Having said all above, I shall however fail in my duty in forum debates if I don’t apprise you of the judicial functions which are being ably discharged by the judges in all courts. This statute has conferred jurisdiction on a criminal court, that is the court of the Magistrate and empowered it to deal with matters which were otherwise within the jurisdiction of courts higher in the hierarchy. Thereby, a woman in distress has to compete for judicial time with the numerous rapist / gays / pick picketers / thieves and their criminal cases in the already heavily burdened courts. Matters relating to family and home are more time consuming than cases involving other issues. Now you say again that it is a civil case then I will not buy again so kindly donot force women litigants to use DV standing next to a rapist in a criminal court she is anyhow half dead due to DV inflected upon her and she will faint seeing where now you pushed her a sugar coated lollipop to her that DV file karo quickest relief milega who civil hai meri client bahana!.

We have RTI replies from various District Courts on volume of cases under The Act, 2005 and have been informed that in Saket Court, a single magistrate has more than 10,000 cases on his board. I am finding that with 1500 to 2000 cases on board, if a judge gives dates of five months to a case, then he or she would have 40 to 50 cases listed on a day. Therefore, giving shorter dates would only increase the number of cases per day. The only trained authority under this Act is the Judge with woefully inadequate infrastructure. I leave it to you to calculate the amount of time which is available to a judge in a single day, to spend on each case, if even 40 cases are to be heard between 10 a.m and 4 p.m. Now donot tell laymen readers here that this Act, 2005 is giving justice faster which no other Act / Codes till date in India have managed to give ! Others may take time to laugh but I beginning to start getting amused by your 20 years knowledge bank.

One more aspect which I find exciting is the right of the magistrate to take cognizance on the

effect on non compliance of the protection orders of the court. Here the term for imprisonment

stipulated is one year. Since we during regular practice before various Court have been  handling cases of maintenance under S. 125 of CrPC, I do not know whether this would be more effective regarding compensation (under Dv Act) because under S. 125 there is 30 days imprisonment for default. So practically, we find it difficult at times as it would mean life imprisonment for a man if he is actually not able to pay. And often Judges who are sitting on the chair have been sending cases of execution to the record room after realizing that though the order was made for maintenance but the man deliberately or out of his habit is not able to earn and provide all the necessities that he is legally obliged to. so there you go keep preaching the effectiveness of clumsily drafted DV to your hearts content.

You have gone way board when you tell laymen readers that only breach of "protection order" is an offence. You forgot to mention in a hurry that there are other Orders under DV Act a Judge gives ! What when there is breach of other orders? If per se there is breach of residence order, custody order and monetary then is it not an offence or according to you they are French kisses of victim wife?

Another thing let me add here the Hon'ble SC has defined dowry in a new way in re. Appa Shaib and others Vs State of Maharashtra. To refresh your recall factor in this re. the deceased wife Bhima Bai was subjected to torture and finally committed suicide. After the case was investigated and charge sheeted, the accused were found guilty by the Mumbai High Court and conviction was upheld by Aurangabad Court under section 304B IPC. The SC went into the question of whether the death was caused due to dowry harassment. What the mother and father have spoken was that whenever she came back to her parental home she would ask for money to be given to her in-laws for buying manuals. They did not have the money for meeting these demands. In this case, the court looked into the definition of dowry given in the Dowry Prohibition Act that means any property or valuables agreed to be given directly or indirectly before or at the time of marriage and in connection with marriage between concerned parties of marriage. Therefore, the demand of money on account of financial intricacies or for meeting some domestic expenses or for purchasing manuals cannot be termed as dowry, looking at the section of Dowry Prohibition Act. If you look at the PWDVA the term ‘dowry’ has been used while defining domestic violence, it is the only place where the word has been used and that too defined in the Rule. It has been used under DIR form, it has been used in cases of verbal and emotional abuse and it has used in specific sense of domestic violence. So using S. 498a IPC in context to DV Act is way board a wishful thinking to peddle such clumsy drafted statutes.

The Bharat Ratna DVA, 2005 is like having a television but without electricity. What is required is to have electricity to make it going. Well by know you must realize that I donot talk here mazdoor bal dal tal union speech quoting various non relevant Acts / Codes when comparing S. 18 till S. 22 of DV Act read with so called fastest giving “protection order” which Prabhakar, Adv. one of our ex ld. LCI brother member used to rebut to us during forum debates but then he made us specialist in S. 498a IPC as we used to debate more on S. 498a IPC ha aha.

Therefore, in order to render this statute more meaningfully and to ensure availability of the urgent relief which it promises to women in distress, it is imperative that before going any further, an assessment is effected of the quantum of cases which may be generated and ensure that there are sufficient judges all over the country to impart justice to them and there are prudent advocates who first understand what this Act 2005 is all about is what I sum up finally in short and long of it.


CJI of LCI Sir, I remind you that this piece of rebuttal is simply a warm up I have not made any rebuttal para wise to ponga pandit name calling piece of your kind self which I will cover next time if I ever see your short and long take on my above piece / interpretation which are sound on legal standing simply bze I did not use metro wives club digs for better legal understanding when two professionals are making a walking talk.

BTW I still like to wish you happy weekend even if you hate me


ta ra rum pum  pum

picture of ponga pundit of lawyers club india

Ha ha

Thank you  'sugar baby'

Two time pass women writers here in LCI are searching for their father and call me papa ji I wonder why you left your real father’s search half way (deleting your profile) after putting your natural fathers pix !

arey ‘sugar baby’ I am actually your real natural father in case your mother feels shy to tell you. Come back to LCI in any ‘New Avatar’ and seek your natural fathers blessing first then delete your account. People like bold sugar babies and as per one women here she says I have made her very bold which she even says so thanking me in her own profile / thread message and putting my other set of pix In her profile .

Half training is not good sugar baby and natural father of yours believes in giving 100% training not 10% like some Adv. of 20 years standing here claims to grt 10% justice in criminal cases for his female clients……. now come back ‘sugar baby’ for 100% training…….. 

Complaint against daughter-in-law is maintainable in Protection of Women against Domestice Voilation Act which include protection for harassment by DIL/SON/ANY OTHER PERSON IN RELATION TO AGGRIEVED PERSON, maintenance and shared accommodation besides other reliefs (which are not applicable in instant case). 

@tajobsindia

Without rancour and animosity, I sincerely believe you require psychiatric treatment for the problems you faced in your life.  For the civilised people living in civilized society, there is no purpose of discussing with you on any matter as long as you keep this stage of mental health. 

hey old boy

u r very EHSHAAN FARAMOSH..

these bold lettered ladies tried a lot to tie yr knot with a cracked bold and beautiful lady..but there are your some rivals and nina's ASHIQUE's nonsense behaviour made these volunteers who worked for your welness to leave this world of LCI.

now you have made yor voice larger against them after their demise.

Anyway you celebrated their demise till late night.

aisha din tumhara bhi aayega...verrrry soon..

if you have courage then fight with me

ha ha

What a boundary you tossed before us. Till mine times some of us were advising son’s to ask parents to file S. 125 CrPC now with advent of DV Act, 2005 see how family law dramatics changes the whole equation and adds to husbands arsenal of facing multiplicity of maint. claims by errant wives club !!

That is why it is yours truely called BHARAT RATNA The Act, 2005

@Tajobs sir,

wah!!!! gr8ly y've explained why this is a Bharat Ratna Act!!!!!!!!!

@Princess

"Ta chacha tum kitne achhe

Tumhe pyaar karte sab gadhe"

Princess apne muzhe gadha bola tha 29 october 11 ko?

aapka naam ab PrincASS hoga.

Hail Tajobs. metro wives bharat chodo.........