I was been abused physically and now filed for divorce

Foul language has to be avoided. Please maintain the decorum of the forum.

Regards,

Shonee Kapoor

harassed.by.498a@gmail.com

Ruchika,

You are as true as anyone else, including me,  on the forum. Don't get too agitated.

Regards,

Shonee Kapoor

harassed.by.498a@gmail.com

As the thread has progressed more 'new' info by the author just trying to make others see she is a victim. One can make their own opinion based on such data available. People have advised based on this data provided. But one should understand that there are two sides to the story. The author has been advised quite well on all available means of actions suitable to her situation. Now she has to make these decisions and take a course she sees fit-and bear the consequences as well.

@ Chandu

1. How come you are a advocate when you donot even know that if a case is going on before a Court there cannot be precedent in Law and second Trail Court Orders are not even taken as precedent by next door Court leave aside what rubbish you are talking being advocate in the name of "precedent" ?????

2. I hope you may know the membership strength if AOL (America online) the Telcom. giant in North America?


Now read first as a simple illustration from International Jurisprudence

Re.: Zeran V. America Online, Inc. 129 F.3d 327 (4TH Cir. 1997) where plaintiff lost their case similar on lines to what you are suggesting in upper case sentence message.

Factual Background in above Re.

The plaintiff claimed that an unidentified third-party had posted statements on a message board advertising t-shirts that glorified the Oklahoma City bombing and giving the plaintiff's telephone number. As a result, Zeran was inundated by irate callers. Plaintiff complained to AOL, which delayed taking the message down and refused to issue a retraction or to screen for similar subsequent postings.

Appellate Court Proceedings in above Re.

The Fourth Circuit gave an expansive reading of S. 230 of the Communications Decency Act. The Court held S. 230 preempted plaintiff's defamation and related claims, that AOL could not be treated as the publisher of the statements, and that even AOL's decision not to remove the post did not render it a publisher.

The court said in above Re.:

Congress' purpose in providing the [Act's] immunity [is] evident. Interactive computer services have millions of users. . . . The specter of tort liability in an area of such prolific speech would have an obvious chilling effect.

3. Among Indian legal portals LCI is a giant. What is the membership base of LCI?  

1,61,017 members which I see and if you are raring to press S. 509 IPC then you will loose case against LCI leave aside any of its 1.6 L membership base. I volunteer to support LCI and any member(s) on whom you propose to file S. 509 IPC defending on Law of torts and such frivolous libel suits.

4. Now let me take you down to your one and only pet versha kapoor staging stage and advise you to read D HC’s

Re. Ashok Kumar Nayyar Vs. The State of NCT Delhi here the ‘lady’ also lost her defamation case.