Divorce on cruelty

@ Author,


See by drawing presumptions of facts in a civil Court which are nothing but inferences that are naturally and logically drawn from experiences and observation from the course of nature, the constitution of human mind, the springs of human action and the habits of the society one can prove reasonably well ki sahiba ‘cruelty’ hua tha mere saath.

Illustration: 

From below alleged allegation of cruelty by a working husband against his working wife can an Judicial mind person may prove say if “cruelty” happened within 4 walls of a home?


– “Husband wanted to buy an iPad but wife would rather go on holiday this summer.”

If  husband do all house work and wife enjoys watching TV.

Is these types of things not cruelty?

Then in that case last question

2. What you like going on top of Nilachal Hills

OR

Missionary of Charities

 I kept maid many times but no one stayed at my home for more than one month. Some times maid left the job within one week.My wife is a house wife.

yea...nice if I could..at present I can't ...I can't b cruel on my hubby n kids...better hire ananya...(S)he has strenght like a male and perfection like a female...

[@ Utpala, agar time pass ho gaya apka aaz to eik client to online gyan du !]

 

@ Mr. Mahajan,


If your wife has chosen to be 'housewife" after marriage then she should follow 'duties' of a housewife. Duties are to upkeep a shared household, look after daily needs of a husband, prepare food for the husband and entertain guests coming to home, if children out of wedlock then look after them etc. are ‘duties of a housewife’ A husband can support emotionally, physically, mentally, monetarily and also by providing basic comforts to a housewife (such as maids etal) to get her ‘duties’ fulfilled in marriage.


If your ‘housewife” wife is not following her ‘duties’ as expected by a husband in any normal household and as one illustration you alleged that she watches TV then it is 'cruelty to a husband'.
 

What you need is to decide what quality of life you want in or out of the marriage?. Today it is difficult to get 'cruelty' allegation based divorce easily from Court. Number of years are spent in Courts. You also need an advocate to handle the allegations part as well as also see if your wife is retaliatory type nature woman. Least you get into some criminal complaint from her side once you file 'cruelty' based divorce suit against her. You also need to weigh the maintenance / alimony parts as well as if you can talk over to her for Mutual Consent Divorce then this is much easier to get and part companies amicably with one time lump sum payment for her alimony and or as mutually agreed between you two.


Lots of careful planning, good drafted petition for divorce, basic presumptive evidence submission and offer to cross examination, hiring an advocate as well as other allegations made part of a divorce suit are required and with one line query of yours I per se cannot guide you by saying that file 'cruelty' allegation based Divorce suit on a housewife – wife!

[Ignore time pass comments / questions of @ Ranee aka Utpala as if she wants to hire your maid thus she is getting into the depth of when, why and how of a maid of your household ! her comments have no relevance to ‘cruelty” Cruelty your wife is doing not maid on you for god sake @ Ranee read simple English of a queriest.  Also maid everyone cannot keep and or as if maids are available regularly under a 30 Kg. TV J ]

[@ Utpala, agar time pass ho gaya apka aaz to eik client to online gyan du !](sure..sure...sorry..actually I thought your legal gyan assistance is over in this thread with the first two most weighed post of yours with pictorial analysis...so i started time passing..

[Ignore time pass comments / questions of @ Ranee aka Utpala as if she wants to hire your maid thus she is getting into the depth of when, why and how of a maid of your household ! her comments have no relevance to ‘cruelty” Cruelty your wife is doing not maid on you for god sake @ Ranee read simple English of a queriest.  Also maid everyone cannot keep and or as if maids are available regularly under a 30 Kg. TV J (...ohh...o..that's what i meant by my above last post...aapko experience hain kya..? :v )

Can a wife prove sodomy by husband?  Can an Indian wife video record it and present as evidence in court to prove sodomy by husband?  Even if it is admissible as evidence.... court watch it?

Just thinking how many things that happen between husband and wife can be proved in court of law, proving adultery is one issue, proving sodomy is also related issue because it relates to proof of one allegation or the other that is how this question is related to the main question raised by Author.  In the matter of cruelty it is OK to show evidences to prove, but in the case of Sodomy is it not invasion or infringement of one's right to privacy even for the court to watch it? It will be a matter of shame for any Indian woman to present it as evidence to court because not everyone will watch it with same perception. 

There are no other ways for court to arrive at its conclusions with regard to veracity of these kinds of allegations? 

In State of Maharashtra Vs. Chandraprakash Kewalchand Jain AIR 1990 SC 658, this Court held that a woman, who is the victim of s*xual assault, is not an accomplice to the crime but is a victim of another person’s lust and, therefore, her evidence need not be tested with the same amount of suspicion as that of an accomplice. The Court observed as under :-

“A prosecutrix of a s*x-offence cannot be put on par with an accomplice. She is in fact a victim of the crime. The Evidence Act nowhere says that her evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars. She is undoubtedly a competent witness under Section 118 and her evidence must receive the same weight as is attached to an injured in cases of physical violence. The same degree of care and caution must attach in the evaluation of her evidence as in the case of an injured complainant or witness and no more. What is necessary is that the Court must be alive to and conscious of the fact that it is dealing with the evidence of a person who is interested in the outcome of the charge levelled by her. If the court keeps this in mind and feels satisfied that it can act on the evidence of the prosecutrix, there is no rule of law or practice incorporated in the Evidence Act similar to illustration (b) to Section 114 which requires it to look for corroboration. If for some reason the court is hesitant to place implicit reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice. The nature of evidence required to lend assurance to the testimony of the prosecutrix must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. But if a prosecutrix is an adult and of full understanding the court is entitled to base a conviction on her evidence unless the same is shown to be infirm and not trustworthy. If the totality of the circumstances appearing on the record of the case disclose that the prosecutrix does not have a strong motive to falsely involve the person charged, the court should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her evidence.”

I think the evidences in these matters shall be exclusively tried by female judges, and evidence should be presented directly to them, then it solves the problem. 

I completely disagree to your s*xist thoughts.


Making it mandatory for rape, sodomy cases to be tried only by women judges seems to be based on some superficial and erroneous notion. Underlying this mandate is a presumption that all male judges are s*xist and all women judges, merely by virtue of their anatomy, are gender sensitive. Experience proves otherwise.

The humiliation a victim experiences is not at the hands of judges but at the hands of extremely s*xist and unscrupulous defence lawyers (usually male). To control this situation what is needed is a sensitive and assertive judge, who is well-versed with the provisions of CrPC and the Indian Evidence Act.

The judge should be able to command respect from defence lawyers. Denying male judges, who are in such a commanding position the opportunity to conduct rape, sodomy trials, and on the other hand placing novice women judges, who do not command this respect, merely because of their gender would defeat the very purpose, which lies beneath this provision you are day dreaming.

Take for example as rejoinder to the citation you quoted - State of Maharashtra, mind it, in the family courts in Maharashtra, one has experienced that assertive and sensitive male judges are better equipped to render justice to women than women judges who lack confidence and get brow beaten by male lawyers. There is also the real danger of a woman judge bending backwards in order not to be labelled as 'pro-woman'.

Examining from the point of women judges, I would think that women judges would hate to be ghettoised. All round experience is essential for the judges to climb up the judicial hierarchy, and women judges would lose out and will resent such a procedural norm.

At a practical level, there are very few women judges in the district and sessions courts in our country. Waiting for a woman judge to be appointed to conduct the trial may cause further delays in conducting the trial. A better procedural norm would be to have specially-designated judges in every district court assigned for a period of three years, who go through mandatory gender sensitisation at the state or national judicial academies. In this manner, in rotation, all judges would be gender sensitised over a period of time.

The problem is who will certify such and such person is sensitive and assertive.  Suppose there is a pot bellied judge who suffers all kinds of mental vulgarities and prurient thinking faculties, how odd a woman would feel? And what is there to judge seeing a sodomy video?  Wohi hai kyaa aadmi...chalo prove hogayaa...dedo divorce.  For this judgment I don't think a woman needs to be too competent also. I haven't thought much.  You may be right also.  But you see there may not be many cases involving Sodomy in Family courts.  The point is not about appointing female judges only in Family courts.  I too don't subscribe to that view.  I am only saying for whatever Sodomy cases which make the Applicants of divorce on the grounds of sodomy uncomfortable, they shall be tried by women judges.  A female would feel comfortable with an insensitive female than a sensitive male in these kinds of aspects.