WHAT A GREAT INJUSTICE TO MEN!!!!!!?????
Oh, HARASSED MEN AND SO CALLED ASSOCIATIONS PROTECTING THEM
RAISE AND AWAKEN, FIGHT IT OUT
I read with great interest the judgment of the HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION in FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 116 OF 2002 WITH FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO. 47 OF 2007.
The said petition for cancellation of permanent alimony by the and also MA No.7/01 requesting the court to take action against the wife by lodging a complaint for the offences under sections 193, 182, 196, 199, 200 and 201 of IPC, as the respondent wife had given false evidences before the court in earlier proceedings. The family court had decreed FA No.77/01 and thereby cancelled the order of grant of permanent alimony from the date of filing of petition. The incidental relief claimed by the husband which is in the nature of direction for return of amount of
maintenance paid by the husband to the wife came to be rejected. The court also rejected the MA No.7/01 for taking action against the respondent wife for leading false evidence before the Court.
Thus the questions for determination which arises in these appeals are (i) as to whether the family court is justified in cancelling the order of grant of permanent alimony and in refusing to issue direction against the wife to return the amount of maintenance already received? (ii) Is the court justified in rejecting the request made by the husband to take action against the respondent wife for leading false evidence?
In COMMON SENSE the answer for the first question should be
(a) Cancellation of the order of grant of permanent alimony is right. It is a clearly proven fact that the wife has erred to the maximum extent possible and hence she should reap the fruits.
Regarding the second part of it, it is worth noting that the divorce has already happened. They are no more husband and wife. THEY WILL NOT HAVE (and they need not have also) any love, affection and/or soft corner for others. BECAUSE THEY ARE ALREADY PARTED. When the former wife (NOW AN ORDINARY WOMAN) can go to the extent of telling lies, misrepresenting and misleading the Court to derive undue benefits WHY action SHOULD be refused and rejected? If they were to be a happy husband and wife the problem would not have been there at all. With their mutual understanding it would have been settled. They would not have come to the Courts at all. When the aggrieved party himself complains, pin points the crimes of the opponent (I do not want to call wife or woman) and seeks relief how can he be denied relief? Will any other ordinary woman who has committed a crime will be let off just like that in other cases? Can it be done at the cost of men? IT IS A GREAT INJUSTICE TO MEN. The said judgment is anti-men. Isn’t it so? THIS MEANS TO SAY THAT ERRING WIVES (AND ALSO FORMER WIVES) ARE FREE TO DO ANYTHING. ALL THEIR CRIMES AND UNTRUTHFULNESS ARE HONORABLE AND UNPUNISHABLE ACCORDING TO THE PRESENT SET UP OF LAWS AND JUDGES.
Imagine a man in the place of that woman in the above case. What would have been the judgment? Definitely he would have been sent to jail. What a cruel paradox indeed.
It is conspicuous that both the Courts in the above case have been cruel to men. It has blatantly rejected the just pleas of the former husband. The Courts have been convinced about the crimes of the woman (wife). And that woman is not an ordinary, rural, uneducated one. She is quite opposite to all that. But the judgment is quite contradicting the common perception of justice. At least the Courts should have taken a positive step in upholding the already worn out statements of EQUALITY AND JUSTICE. I am sure that the first part of the judgment will be of less consequence for the criminal wives. THIS JUDGMENT IS SURE TO SEND WRONG SIGNALS. IT LEGALISES AND ENCOURAGES FURTHER MORE CRIMES AGAINST MEN/HUSBANDS.
PLEASE FIGHT IT OUT.
