Legal Help For Bohra Victims.

[ghulam muhammed]

I suggest that this thread should deal with legal issues and remedies as available in India and other countries with regard to the harassment, human rights abuse and criminal acts committed by Kothar and members suggest their POV within the legal framework so as to help the victims of such atrocities.

Members could quote the appropriate laws as applicable and names and addresses of rights organisations and NGOs which could also be of help to the victims.

[anajmi]

We have fayyaaz who knows everything about what is legal and what is illegal. Please send him a pm everytime someone has an issue. On this forum he consults for free.

[fustrate_Bohra]

Admin bhai, can we mark this topic as STICKY. I think this topic will make aware about the things which are ILLEGAL and what action can be taken pertaining to religion.

Members if you are aware of any law please feel free to share here.

[fustrate_Bohra]

I google it on ARTICLE(27) this is what it said on (Right to Freedom of Religion} Article 27: No person shall be compelled to pay any tax for the promotion or maintenance of any religion
According to this article of Indian constitution, no person shall be forced to pay any taxes, the proceeds of which are particularly appropriated in payment of expenses for the spread or protection of any particular religion or religious denomination.

[ghulam muhammed]

False cruelty cases under Section 498A ruining marriages, SC says

The Supreme Court on Monday said false complaints under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code against innocent in-laws alleging cruelty and harassment at matrimonial homes were increasingly making the husbands adamant not to take back their wives.

"For no fault, the in-laws, especially old parents of the husband, are taken to jail the moment a false complaint is filed against them by a woman under Section 498A. By roping in in-laws without a reason and for settling a score with the husband, the false and exaggerated 498A complaints are causing havoc to marriages," said a bench of Chief Justice H L Dattu and A K Sikri.

These comments assume significance as it has been a trend with the apex court to seek response from the husband on a mere mention of a petition by a woman in matrimonial disputes. The court also readily transfers a matrimonial case to a place convenient to the wife, brushing aside protests from the husband.

"There is an increasing hardening of stand among husbands, whose parents had been arrested in false 498A cases, not to take back the wife. They say they are willing to give her all the property, they will take care of the children's education and marriage but will not take her back."

"They take a plea before the court that they may have committed a mistake but for that punishing their old parents on a false complaint was not condonable. The false complaints under Section 498A are ruining marriages."

Recently, the Supreme Court had ruled that even a single false dowry complaint against the husband and in-laws was sufficient ground for courts to grant decree of divorce to annul the marriage.

Allowing dissolution of marriage between K Srinivas and K Sunita last month, the court had said, "We unequivocally find that the respondent-wife had filed a false criminal complaint, and even one such complaint is sufficient to constitute matrimonial cruelty. We accordingly dissolve the marriage of the parties."

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 424532.cms

[ghulam muhammed]

As a woman, you are entitled to some rights by law that protect you when you have been violated. Here are some that you should be aware of.

RIGHT TO PRIVACY WHILE RECORDING STATEMENT
Under section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code, a woman who has been raped can record her statement before the district magistrate when the case is under trial, and no one else needs to be present. Alternatively, she can record the statement with only one police officer and woman constable in a convenient place that is not crowded and does not provide any possibility of the statement being overheard by a fourth person. The police have to, by law, protect the woman’s right to privacy. It’s important for the person to feel comfortable and not be under any kind of stress while narrating the incident.

TIME DOESN’T MATTER
The police cannot refuse to register an FIR even if a considerable period of time has elapsed since the incident of rape or
molestation took place. If the police tells you that they can’t lodge your FIR since you didn’t report it earlier, do not concede. “Rape is a horrifying incident for any woman, so it’s natural for her to go into shock and not want to report it immediately. She may also fear for her safety and the reputation and dignity of her family. For this reason, the Supreme Court has ruled that the police must register an FIR even if there has been a gap between the report and the occurrence of the incident,” says Tariq Abeed, advocate, Supreme Court.

POLICE CAN’T SAY NO
A rape victim can register her police complaint from any police station under the Zero FIR ruling by Supreme Court. “Sometimes, the police station under which the incident occurs refuses to register the victim’s complaint in order to keep clear of responsibility, and tries sending the victim to another police station. In such cases, she has the right to lodge an FIR at any police station in the city under the Zero FIR ruling. The senior officer will then direct the SHO of the police station concerned to lodge the FIR,” says Abeed. This is a Supreme Court ruling that not many women are aware of, so don’t let the SHO of a police station send you away saying it “doesn’t come under his area”.

NO ARRESTS AFTER SUNSET
According to a Supreme Court ruling, a woman cannot be arrested after sunset and before sunrise. There are many cases of women being harassed by the police in the wee hours, but all this can be avoided if you exercise the right of being present in the police station only during daytime. “Even if there is a woman constable accompanying the officers, the police can’t arrest a woman at night. In case the woman has committed a serious crime, the police has to get it in writing from the magistrate explaining why the arrest is necessary during the night,” says Bhaumik.

YOU CAN’T BE CALLED TO THE POLICE STATION
Women cannot be called to the police station for interrogation under Section 160 of the Criminal Procedure Code. This law
provides Indian women the right of not being physically present at the police station for interrogation. “The police can interrogate a woman at her residence in the presence of a woman constable and family members or friends,” says Abeed. So the next time you’re called to the police station for queries or interrogation when you have faced any kind of harassment, quote this guideline of the Supreme Court to exercise your right and remind the cops about it.

THE DOCTOR CAN’T DECIDE
A case of rape can’t be dismissed even if the doctor says rape had not taken place. A victim of rape needs to be medically examined as per Section 164 A of the Criminal Procedure Code, and only the report can act as proof. “A woman has the right to have a copy of the medical report from the doctor. Rape is a crime, not a medical condition. It is a legal term and not a diagnosis to be made by the medical officer treating the victim. The only statement that can be made by the medical officer is that there is evidence of recent sexual activity. Whether the rape has occurred or not is a legal conclusion and the doctor can’t decide on this,” explains Bhaumik.

PROTECT YOUR IDENTITY
Under no circumstances can the identity of a rape victim be revealed. Neither the police nor media can make known the
name of the victim in public. Section 228-A of the Indian Penal Code makes the disclosure of a victim’s identity a punishable offense.
Printing or publishing the name or any matter which may make known the identity of a woman against whom an offense has been committed is punishable. This is done to prevent social victimisation or ostracism of the victim of a sexual offense. Even while a judgment is in progress at the high court or a lower court, the name of the victim is not indicated, she is only described as ‘victim’ in the judgment.

EMPLOYERS MUST PROTECT
It is the duty of every employer to create a Sexual Harassment Complaints Committee within the organisation for redressal of such complaints. According to a guideline issued by the Supreme Court, it is mandatory for all firms, public and private, to set up these committees to resolve matters of sexual harassment. It is also necessary that the committee be headed by a woman and include 50 per cent women as members. Also, one of the members should be from a women’s welfare group.

Sources: Saumya Bhaumik (women's right lawyer, Tariq Abeed (advocate, Supreme court)

http://www.hindustantimes.com/Entertain ... 82694.aspx

[ghulam muhammed]

In case of divorce proceedings in Badri Mahal or in any Bohra Jamat we normally see that women are mostly on the losing side and she succumbs to the Amil's wrongful pressures easily as legally putting an end to a broken relationship is more important to her then securing her other rights. By doing this she mostly compromises on the financial aspects and prefers to let go of what she is entitled to. I have seen many cases wherein the Amil allows the husband to retain all the jewellery and other gifts which belongs to his wife and the poor lady is left with nothing but a plain divorce.

Most of the Bohra women are not aware that they have a legal right to ALL the gifts, jewellery etc given to her by her husband, friends, relatives and others at the time of marriage and even after marriage. The same are known as "Stridhan" and she can claim all of the above as prescribed under the law of Stridhan and no Amil or any court of law can ignore this fact.

[qutub_mamajiwala]

came to know from a friend residing in kuwait, that similar case is going there for a lady named z----- l---------. (name removed by Moderator for privacy reasons)
sahabe dawat mukasir saheb has promised to look into case and to do justice.
no news after that what happend?
anyone from kuwait can shed light on this.

[anajmi]

It would be better to keep names of private citizens private.

[Moderator-1]

It would be better to keep names of private citizens private.

Good Suggestion and it has been corrected

[qutub_mamajiwala]

i appreciate that private names should be kept private, but i posted it in case somebody from there would find out.
if name is not given, then how come he will find out. she is in very delicate and troublesome situation due to his husband and needs to be helped, otherwise she would go to jail for not her fault. she is fighting a lonely battle all by herself. i dont think she would mind her name published as she wants help from any quarter.

[qutub_mamajiwala]

if anybody in kuwait can help her, it us urgent request on behalf of her.
can pm me so i can send her name and whereabouts
thanks

[ghulam muhammed]

A divorce case was posted on the forum on 26th June 2007 :-

Divorce for no sex

Sexual aversion by wife and false ground for divorce, Seeking divorce on unidentified or false grounds (hiding the sexual aversion).

Mukasir-e-dawaat office which deals in family affairs of community members is just another crap of beurocratic dawaat. The office bearer or counsellor here misguides the people and misbehaves with them. In foremost place they are biased. In the name of arbitration they apply coercion and in name of religion just enjoy there supremacy which is a crap. They are just bothered to soak the money and dont reply to even single mail seeking help and even whole of their network works like this. The Nikahnama and talakhnama have been altered to suit there needs and fools around the victims like me who are trapped at there hands.

Reversing a Mukasir-e-dawaat office order dismissing my wifes petition for divorce on the unidentified grounds my SIF lawyers on the ground of cruelty by my wife, observed: ``The evidence on record shows that the absence of normal
sexual relations was definitely one reason for the failure of the marriage. It also cannot be denied that the husband underwent mental agony as a result thereof.''.Holding that sexual incompatibility or denial of sex by wife was sufficient ground to seek divorce,the ground of divorce should have been identified by dawaat office bearers and it was very clear Sexual aversion by wife.But this ground was never disclosed nor disscused.

Mukasir-e-dawaat's office appointed counsellor had asked me to pay Rs 1.8 lakhs to my wife as permanent alimony, which I gave immediately,but moments later my wife rejected to take alimony. This buerocratics are very happy to see the money lying on their maze. The counsellor threatened me of marriage court proceedings.

Challenging the Mukasir-e-dawaat office order of January 2007 where my wife's plea for divorce was rejected, I had remarked in the Mukasir-e-dawaat office alleging that my marriage was not properly consummated as my wife had never offered herself for complete sexual intimacy with me since we got married in January 2005. I also alleged that my wife used to be violent in bed and that her behaviour never improved.

I had accused my in-laws of threatening me with dire consequences when I had tried to bring the issue to their notice. My wife was taken away by them to their house in May 2005.

After the Mukasir-e-dawaat Office counsellor refused to permit my wife to take divorce, my in-laws threatened me with dire consequences and accused me in false IPC 509 Sexual and Mental Harassment case. They alleged me that I am not at good mental state and should go to see the behavioural therapist.

Local Amil office annulled a 3 months-old marriage in February 2007 after I got ready for divorce but still my wife did not admitted for sexual aversion. Both sides agreed to dissolve the relationship.

I am fighting against false complaint and would want to put Defamation IPC 499 and 500 against my in-laws and they should be severely punished for puttig false case and denial of acceptance of sexual aversion by my wife leading to adverse effects.

[Ozdundee]

The evidence on record shows that the absence of normal
sexual relations was definitely one reason for the failure of the marriage. It also cannot be denied that the husband underwent mental agony as a result thereof.''.Holding that sexual incompatibility or denial of sex by wife was sufficient ground to seek divorce,the ground of divorce should have been identified by dawaat office bearers and it was very clear Sexual aversion by wife.But this ground was never disclosed nor disscused.

with reference to Mariam KarimJi article did anyone establish why the wife denied him sex?

Was FGM a factor ?

[ghulam muhammed]

Polygamy not integral part of Islam: SC

NEW DELHI: Although their personal law permits men to have four wives, the Supreme Court on Monday ruled that a Muslim's fundamental right to profess Islam did not include practicing polygamy.

"What was protected under Article 25 (right to practice and propagate any religion) was the religious faith and not a practice which may run counter to public order, health or morality. Polygamy was not integral part of religion and monogamy was a reform within the power of the State under Article 25," said a bench of Justices T S Thakur and A K Goel.

The bench said that polygamy was not integral to religion and the practice of polygamy did not acquire sanction of religion simply because it was permitted.

It upheld the UP government's decision to sack one of its employees on the ground of misconduct for opting for a second marriage during existence of the first marriage without its prior permission.

Referring to its earlier verdict, the bench said that Article 25 protects religious faith, not a practice. It noted that the court had upheld the views of the Bombay, Gujarat and Allahabad high courts in this regard.

The bench upheld conduct rules framed by UP Government Servant Conduct Rules, saying that it did not violate Article 25 of the Constitution.

In this case Khursheed Ahmad Khan, employed as irrigation supervisor, had married Anjum Begum during existence of first marriage with Sabina Begum. Sister of his first wife had filed a complaint before National Human Rights Commission which ordered a police probe in the case.

The police submitted its report before the commission saying that Khan had married a second time during the existence of the first marriage. On this basis, the state government had initiated proceedings and later removed him from service for failure to take prior permission for second marriage as was required under rule 29 of the conduct rules.

Khan had then approached the Allahabad high court and challenged his removal from service. The HC had dismissed his plea.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 180105.cms

[ghulam muhammed]

Qualified woman can’t claim maintenance: Court

MUMBAI: A family court has observed that a well-qualified woman cannot claim maintenance from her husband. "The wife who is well-qualified and claiming maintenance by sitting idle is not entitled to get maintenance. The wife is not entitled to advantage of her own wrong, she cannot harass the husband on the count of maintenance though she is capable to earn," the court said while dismissing a dietician's plea to seek a monthly maintenance of Rs 2 lakh from her divorced husband.

In the petition filed in 2013, the woman alleged that throughout their marriage, the husband and his family members had ill-treated her and harassed her both physically and mentally for bringing less dowry. She further alleged that they demanded Rs 50 lakh as dowry, gold and a luxury car from her parents.

The woman claimed that due to this, she was forced to live separately from April 2011 and had to move in with her parents. She also said that she had no source of income and is totally dependent on her parents.

The woman said that the man is a successful businessman and the family's business was also operational in Dubai. "They are running their business jointly and earning an income of more than Rs 15 lakh per month," the woman claimed.

The man alleged that the woman was not entitled to get maintenance as she is not his legally wedded wife. "The marriage between the petitioner (woman) and the respondent was dissolved by way of talaq on September 7, 2014. Secondly, the petitioner is well-qualified, having good experience and good income, therefore, she is not entitled for grant of maintenance," the man said in his reply. He claimed that her income was not less than Rs 50,000 per month.

The court refuted the man's first argument and said that a Muslim woman who has obtained divorce is entitled to get maintenance till her remarriage. "In such circumstances, the story brought by respondent that talaq took place between them does not affect the right of petitioner to claim maintenance," the court said.

The court, however, pointed out that the woman admitted that she has completed degree and post-graduation in food and science nutrition, worked in top notch companies but is presently not working. "The above statement made by the petitioner clearly shows that she is well-qualified and able to do job," the court said.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city ... 489096.cms

[ghulam muhammed]

SC: Right to maintenance of a wife absolute, Section 125 of CrPC applicable on divorced women

Apr 7, 2015

The Supreme Court on Monday said the right to maintenance of a wife was absolute and no exceptions could be made, ruling that Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which embodies this rule, would apply to divorced Muslim women as well.

"If the husband is healthy, able-bodied and is in a position to support himself, he is under the legal obligation to support his wife, for the wife's right to receive maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, unless disqualified, is an absolute right," a bench comprising Justices Dipak Misra and PC Pant said.

SC clarified maintenance under the section cannot be restricted in any way for divorced Muslim women who would be entitled to the allowance as long as they do not remarry.

"The amount of maintenance to be awarded under Section 125 CrPC cannot be restricted for the iddat period only," the court said, citing an earlier ruling by a Constitution bench. The clarification would help divorced Muslim women whose right to maintenance was curtailed by a law passed in Parliament by the Rajiv Gandhi government in the wake of the top court's Shah Bano ruling.

Though family courts have over the years whittled down the rigour of the law to give relief to divorced Muslim women too, the court's ruling settles the issue that civil law of the land would prevail over any personal laws. "There can be no shadow of doubt that an order under Section 125 CrPC can be passed if a person, despite having sufficient means, neglects or refuses to maintain the wife," the bench said.

"Sometimes, a plea is advanced by the husband that he does not have the means to pay for he does not have a job or his business is not doing well. These are only bald excuses and, in fact, they have no acceptability in law."

The court said this in a case involving one Shamima Farooqui from Lucknow. She was ill-treated by her husband Shahid Khan, who later remarried. Her application filed in 1998 was taken up in 2012. Khan was a Nayak in the Army who earned `17,654 per month, including perks. The family court initially granted her Rs.2,000 per month and later Rs.4,000 per month after recording that she had no other means of supporting herself.

However, the high court reduced it to Rs.2,000 per month, taking note of the fact that the husband had retired from the Army in 2012. This drew the top court's ire. "In today's world, it is extremely difficult to conceive that a woman of her status would be in a position to manage within Rs.2,000 per month The inherent and fundamental principle behind Section 125 is for amelioration of financial state of affairs.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 833908.cms

[ghulam muhammed]

Family court stops Muslim man from marrying second time

MUMBAI: The family court, in an unprecedented order, has restrained a Muslim US-returned paediatrician from marrying for the second time till he settles the rights and dues of his wife.

"The law and the religion both do not permit a Muslim man to perform another marriage as of a right by defeating and delaying the rights of his first wife," said Judge Swati Chauhan in her May 13 order. Worli resident Dr Akbar Khan (name changed) is directed "not to perform another marriage" till the January 30, 2015 order to grant his estranged wife Sakina (name changed) alternate accommodation is complied with. And, until her prayer for maintenance is not "heard, decided and fully complied with".

Sakina (34) had moved the court after finding that Akbar (45) had posted an ad on an online matrimonial website that he is "desirous of marrying an unmarried young girl in the age group of 18-25 years". She apprehended that Akbar's remarriage would "frustrate and defeat her lawful rights".

The couple married on May 27, 2001 and the next month moved to the US where four sons, between 12 and 4 years, were born. Frictions arose between them even before the family shifted back to Mumbai in September 2011 and into a leased flat in Versova.

Sakina had initially approached the family court in Bandra for custody of her three older children saying Akbar without her consent had snatched them from her. She claimed that the landlord had asked her to vacate the flat in July 2014. She pointed out that the Akbar had not complied with the court's earlier order to allow her access to her 3 sons and alternate accommodation. She urged that Akbar be directed not to marry another woman till her rights are adjudicated upon.

Akbar's advocate argued that his client had divorced Sakina, who had accepted the talaq as she had not challenged it. He said the parties are governed under the Muslim Personal Law and therefore a husband cannot be restricted from exercising his right to perform four marriages.

Sakina's advocate Neelofar Akhtar countered that a husband can be restricted under the law and religion if he is defeating the rights of his first wife. She argued that the widely accepted perception of four marriages is nothing but an "end product of misrepresentation of the holy Quran". Akhtar cited the surah nisa ayat 3 and 129 saying Muslim men are permitted to enter into four marriages but it is after compliance of certain stipulations which serve as injunction.

Judge Chauhan said that from a careful reading of its English version, it is understood that Muslim men are preached that they can marry for the second time only if they are able to be equitable to both the women. "In the same breath the surah nisa further states that practically this is not possible and therefore second marriage should not be contracted because it will cause injustice," she added.

Chauhan said various authors and authoritative writings have discouraged polygamy and stringent conditions were imposed on men even during the lifetime of Prophet Mohammad. The judge said Akbar's "conduct is absolutely against the injunction of the Holy Quran", as he has "shown least care towards the issue of food, clothing, maintenance and accommodation of the petitioner".

Chauhan also took note of the Supreme Court's February 2015 judgment in Khursheed Ahmad Khan versus State of UP case, which Akhtar again relied upon, which held that a practice cannot acquire religious sanction just because it is permitted and even the practice of having more wives than one can be regulated or prohibited in the interest of public order, morality and health.

The judge noted that despite the order for providing suitable accommodation for Sakina and her 4-year-old son, Akbar has kept her away from the matrimonial home and her 3 sons strategically. He has also not provided her with any maintenance and "very conveniently" remained absent for the hearings. "In such a situation, if the respondent performs another marriage, the rights of the petitioner would definitely be defeated," the judge said, concluding that "it is a fit case" to pass the direction.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/nri/ ... 561393.cms

[ghulam muhammed]

Family court stops Muslim man from marrying second time

MUMBAI: The family court, in an unprecedented order, has restrained a Muslim US-returned paediatrician from marrying for the second time till he settles the rights and dues of his wife.

"The law and the religion both do not permit a Muslim man to perform another marriage as of a right by defeating and delaying the rights of his first wife," said Judge Swati Chauhan in her May 13 order. Worli resident Dr Akbar Khan (name changed) is directed "not to perform another marriage" till the January 30, 2015 order to grant his estranged wife Sakina (name changed) alternate accommodation is complied with. And, until her prayer for maintenance is not "heard, decided and fully complied with".

Sakina (34) had moved the court after finding that Akbar (45) had posted an ad on an online matrimonial website that he is "desirous of marrying an unmarried young girl in the age group of 18-25 years". She apprehended that Akbar's remarriage would "frustrate and defeat her lawful rights".

The couple married on May 27, 2001 and the next month moved to the US where four sons, between 12 and 4 years, were born. Frictions arose between them even before the family shifted back to Mumbai in September 2011 and into a leased flat in Versova.

Sakina had initially approached the family court in Bandra for custody of her three older children saying Akbar without her consent had snatched them from her. She claimed that the landlord had asked her to vacate the flat in July 2014. She pointed out that the Akbar had not complied with the court's earlier order to allow her access to her 3 sons and alternate accommodation. She urged that Akbar be directed not to marry another woman till her rights are adjudicated upon.

Akbar's advocate argued that his client had divorced Sakina, who had accepted the talaq as she had not challenged it. He said the parties are governed under the Muslim Personal Law and therefore a husband cannot be restricted from exercising his right to perform four marriages.

Sakina's advocate Neelofar Akhtar countered that a husband can be restricted under the law and religion if he is defeating the rights of his first wife. She argued that the widely accepted perception of four marriages is nothing but an "end product of misrepresentation of the holy Quran". Akhtar cited the surah nisa ayat 3 and 129 saying Muslim men are permitted to enter into four marriages but it is after compliance of certain stipulations which serve as injunction.

Judge Chauhan said that from a careful reading of its English version, it is understood that Muslim men are preached that they can marry for the second time only if they are able to be equitable to both the women. "In the same breath the surah nisa further states that practically this is not possible and therefore second marriage should not be contracted because it will cause injustice," she added.

Chauhan said various authors and authoritative writings have discouraged polygamy and stringent conditions were imposed on men even during the lifetime of Prophet Mohammad. The judge said Akbar's "conduct is absolutely against the injunction of the Holy Quran", as he has "shown least care towards the issue of food, clothing, maintenance and accommodation of the petitioner".

Chauhan also took note of the Supreme Court's February 2015 judgment in Khursheed Ahmad Khan versus State of UP case, which Akhtar again relied upon, which held that a practice cannot acquire religious sanction just because it is permitted and even the practice of having more wives than one can be regulated or prohibited in the interest of public order, morality and health.

The judge noted that despite the order for providing suitable accommodation for Sakina and her 4-year-old son, Akbar has kept her away from the matrimonial home and her 3 sons strategically. He has also not provided her with any maintenance and "very conveniently" remained absent for the hearings. "In such a situation, if the respondent performs another marriage, the rights of the petitioner would definitely be defeated," the judge said, concluding that "it is a fit case" to pass the direction.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/nri/ ... 561393.cms

'The Un-sacredness of Sharia'

The recent observation of the Mumbai High Court, asking an NRI Muslim husband to settle the dues of the first wife in order to divorce her and marry a second time is most welcome. The problem mostly in cases such as these is that even simple observations of court in regard with Muslim women’s rights gets mired in the controversies about enforcing Uniform Civil Code.

In this case though, the debate has been internal to the community. Mostly, the debate on the rights of Muslim women becomes stale as it is debated mostly in the context of a majoritarian state and society. The argument that is given is that any articulation of Muslim women’s rights has the potential to play into the hands of the Hindutva which always exploits such issues not so much to reform the Muslim society but to denigrate Muslims and their religion. It is therefore argued that Muslim women’s question-the question of their rights and democratization-should wait for the right context. But perhaps in the last so many decades, that context has never realised itself.

The only time such an opportunity did come about was during the so called Shah Bano affair, but even then, the political exigencies of the day saw to it that Muslim women were given a raw deal and Muslim men were assured of their absolute control over the bodies of women. People, including some politicians who dissented, were side-lined to the extent that today they are in oblivion.

The Mumbai HC judgment is welcome also because the advocate defending the Muslim women was herself a Muslim woman. What also makes the case interesting is that her defence is not just couched in terms of a liberal secular discourse on women’s rights but also from within the Islamic tradition through a reading which enables a rights based perspective. This is not entirely new, as many feminist Muslim scholars have been arguing from this perspective for some decades now. What is however new is the articulation of this perspective in the Indian context and the judiciary lending a sympathetic hearing to this point of view. In days to come, perhaps this is the only way out: more and more women challenging patriarchal readings of the scriptures and the Islamic law. Arguing from within the Islamic tradition will also take away the criticism that the battle for Muslim women’s rights will help the Hindutva brigade.

It is true that Indian Muslims are governed by their own personal laws and that they are one of the cornerstones of Indian secularism but minority rights as enshrined in the constitution should not be confused with the stagnancy and sterility of that particular law. The law must be dynamic and give space for change with the changing social context. Rather what we find with the Muslim personal law in India is that the law itself has become an impediment to social changes within the community particularly in relation to women’s rights. This of course is abetted by decades of reactionary leadership, both political and religious, which holds that the personal laws of the Muslims are sacred and therefore actively subvert any proposed changes within it.

What we do not realise is that the present law was made during the colonial times and is not even codified. What is considered sacred by Muslims became a law during non-Muslim state and for the convenience of British Victorian legal interpreters who did not want to sift through the maze of conventional and customary laws which defined Muslim laws during that time. Moreover, a history of this particular law would tell us, that wherever convenient, the law was suitably amended to suit the patriarchal concerns different regional Muslim communities. Historically also, Sharia has never been considered hundred percent divine.

Reason always has an important role to play in the interpretation of the Islamic law. And reason is always underwritten by the existing normative structure of society. Therefore to argue that Sharia is divine is not just historically inaccurate, it is also plainly wrong. Any attempt at interpreting the divine has to use human agency and thus the evolution of Islamic jurisprudence, although claimed to be divinely ordained, has always had the imprint of human interpretation based on reason. It is for this reason alone, that Islamic Sharia has different interpretations in different societies. Thus Sharia laws in Pakistan and other Muslim countries have been changed over time is more progressive as compared to India where still Sharia is being considered divine.

The Mumbai HC, in asking the Muslim man to settle the dues of the first wife, in order to divorce her and marry a second time, is in line with progressive interpretation of the Sharia and therefore should be welcome. It is but a small step towards gaining some more rights for Indian Muslim women. The most important outcome perhaps of the whole episode has been the brilliant lawyer fighting on behalf of the victim and whose arguments for women’s rights within the Islamic tradition ultimately convinced the court. We need more such courageous Muslim women. For ultimately, this fight against rampant misogyny in Muslim society has to be led by them.

http://www.newageislam.com/islam,-women ... -/d/103391

[ghulam muhammed]

Woman fined Rs 1 lakh for misusing law against husband

NEW DELHI: A court here has dismissed a woman's complaint of domestic violence against her husband and in-laws, noting that she misused legal provisions as a tool to extort unjustified money from him for unjustified personal gain, and imposed a cost of Rs 1 lakh on her.

Metropolitan magistrate Shivani Chauhan dismissed the complaint of the woman, a south Delhi resident, saying that she had falsified and concocted various allegations and suppressed important facts in order to harass her in-laws.

The court said that generally women are at the receiving end of domestic violence and the Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence (PWDV) Act is created solely with a view to provide relief to the victims of domestic violence and not to the perpetrators.

It, however, noted that "the testimony of the complainant (woman) throws light on the conduct of the complainant and the extent, to which she has falsified and concocted various allegations and has suppressed important facts in order to harass the respondents (husband and parents-in-laws) and had misused the PWDV Act as a tool to extort unjustified money from respondent No. 1 (husband) for unjustified personal gain."

"It is a fit case which calls for imposition of exemplary cost on complainant, so that like minded people are dissuaded from resorting to such mala fide practices," the court said, while dismissing the woman's complaint with a cost of Rs 1 lakh, to be deposited in the account of Blind Relief Association.

"The imposition of cost is in furtherance of the principle that wrongdoers should not get benefit out of frivolous litigations," it said. In her complaint against her husband and in-laws, she said she got married in November 1989 at Patna and it was a love marriage.

After the marriage, however, the differences between the couple grew and she was harassed physically and verbally by her husband while her in-laws turned a blind eye towards the issue, the complaint said.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 735472.cms

[alivasan]

Woman fined Rs 1 lakh for misusing law against husband

NEW DELHI: A court here has dismissed a woman's complaint of domestic violence against her husband and in-laws, noting that she misused legal provisions as a tool to extort unjustified money from him for unjustified personal gain, and imposed a cost of Rs 1 lakh on her.

Metropolitan magistrate Shivani Chauhan dismissed the complaint of the woman, a south Delhi resident, saying that she had falsified and concocted various allegations and suppressed important facts in order to harass her in-laws.

The court said that generally women are at the receiving end of domestic violence and the Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence (PWDV) Act is created solely with a view to provide relief to the victims of domestic violence and not to the perpetrators.

It, however, noted that "the testimony of the complainant (woman) throws light on the conduct of the complainant and the extent, to which she has falsified and concocted various allegations and has suppressed important facts in order to harass the respondents (husband and parents-in-laws) and had misused the PWDV Act as a tool to extort unjustified money from respondent No. 1 (husband) for unjustified personal gain."

"It is a fit case which calls for imposition of exemplary cost on complainant, so that like minded people are dissuaded from resorting to such mala fide practices," the court said, while dismissing the woman's complaint with a cost of Rs 1 lakh, to be deposited in the account of Blind Relief Association.

"The imposition of cost is in furtherance of the principle that wrongdoers should not get benefit out of frivolous litigations," it said. In her complaint against her husband and in-laws, she said she got married in November 1989 at Patna and it was a love marriage.

After the marriage, however, the differences between the couple grew and she was harassed physically and verbally by her husband while her in-laws turned a blind eye towards the issue, the complaint said.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 735472.cms

This is exactly the cause which Save India Family (SIF) www.sif.org lead by swaroop sarkar is fighting for judgement on dealing strictly or by paying attention (also modi government and supreme court directions) to gender biased law misuse. I was victimized in false 498A case in 2007. cruel wife just took advantage of me being staying outside india when I did not realize the extent of misuse by terror, asking to sign divorce paper at gun point using force of corrupt police,harassment with false allegations of mental torcher, i had to let go well settled job and ruin entire planning of life and future putting in nothing except hopelessness.once she being lawyer was cruel not hesitating to slightest instance when my Hindu office friend delayed payment owed to me on grounds of mental torcher.thank god..i kept away from taking her help. there was another case heard in Delhi high court in favor of husband victimized which found that girl who was leading the women rights council (double faced hypocrite-harass husband and show outside that she cares for women rights) framed her husband in false 498a case. both the historic judgements posted in times and there are few more recently.

In growing light of corruption it has become easy for bohri girls to terrorize husband mostly suffering from ego.

[ghulam muhammed]

Muslim woman goes to court against bigamy

AHMEDABAD: Can a Muslim man remarry without the consent of his first wife? Does it amount to bigamy under the Indian Penal Code? A petition to quash a complaint of bigamy against a man from Chhattisgarh led Gujarat high court to discuss whether IPC should prevail over Muslim personal laws.

The questions arose during the hearing of a petition filed by one Zafar Abbas Merchant from Raipur in Chhattisgarh. Merchant's wife Sajedabanu had returned to her parental home in Bhavnagar from Raipur in 2001 following marital discord. Merchant remarried in 2003 without her consent. A year later, Sajedabanu filed a police complaint accusing Merchant of bigamy.

The Bhavnagar police booked him for bigamy, cruelty, wife-beating and also under dowry prohibition laws. The offence of bigamy, section 494 of the IPC, was invoked for not taking consent of his first wife for second marriage.

Merchant moved the high court in 2010, claiming that his second marriage is not bigamous as Muslim personal laws permit a man to marry four times. Against this, Sajedabanu's lawyer argued that provision of personal law — of giving equal justice to all wives — was violated by not obtaining the first wife's consent and ill treating her. Hence, dilution of conditions of personal laws invites offence under IPC, the lawyer said.

The HC appointed an amicus curiae to assist the court. He read out aayat from Sura-e-Niqah justifying more marriages; he also read out passages saying a man is permitted more than one wife but should do justice between them.

The amicus curiae submitted there was no compulsion to get consent from the first wife for a man to marry a second time as per sharia laws as well as country's personal law. When the marriage is not illegal as per personal law, second wedding does not attract IPC provisions, he said.

After all parties referred to plethora of court judgments and literature on religious laws, the HC reserved is order on the subject.

Court query

"I am a judge. I am expected to decide on this issue. Don't misunderstand me and this is not to hurt any sentiment. But there is one God, who made rules. Then why are there separate rules for different communities?" Justice J B Pardiwala

Amicus curiae's reply
"God made same rules for entire mankind. Bigamy is there in all religions, and there are examples in all mythologies. But the man-made rules later restricted the practice. Till the enactment of the Hindu Marriage Act in 1955, even Hindus were allowed to practice bigamy".

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/indi ... 907052.cms

[ghulam muhammed]

Talaqnama not sufficient proof of Muslim Divorce: Bombay HC [Read Judgment]

Mere existence of a document like talaqnama, is not sufficient to render a valid Talaq. Justice M.S. Sonak held that, for a valid Talaq, it is not sufficient that the prescribed expressions are pronounced thrice but the stages it is preceded by, are required to be pleaded and proved before the Court, if disputed by wife, the Court held.

Read more at: http://www.livelaw.in/talaqnama-not-suf ... bombay-hc/

[ghulam muhammed]

Islamic law of divorce

The law of divorce is one of the most misunderstood and debated canons of Islam. And its back in focus thanks to the recent judgement of a Delhi court which upheld the validity of divorce given by a Shia Muslim to his wife through his agent to pronounce the word 'talaq' in Arabic as he himself was not conversant with the language. The Shia law insists that divorce must be pronounced in Arabic either by the husband or his agent (vakil) in the presence of two male witnesses. On the contrary, the Sunni law does not make pronouncement in Arabic compulsory while it surprisingly upholds the legality of talaq uttered in the absence of witnesses despite the fact that the Quran in surah Talaq clearly mandates the presence of two witnesses at the time of divorce. But then the Sunni law also allows instant triple talaq which is not allowed under the Shia law. Given these differences, it becomes imperative to know as to what the Quran and the last Prophet had to say on this issue which has become so contentious today.

Under the present Muslim law the term talaq is exclusively used for divorce proceedings initiated by the husband whereas divorce at the instance of the wife is called khula. But the Quran does not differentiate between talaq and khula. In fact, the word khula finds no mention in the Quran. Yet we find khula discussed at length in Muslims books of jurisprudence with no reference to the Quran or the Prophet’s elucidation of it. One may be shocked to know that while men are granted the right to absolute divorce without any judicial intervention (by pronouncing the word “talaq” thrice in quick succession), Muslim jurists restrict this right for women under khula by laying down the conditions that;

a) The offer of khula from the wife must be accompanied by a consideration (usually monetary) known as evaz
b) The offer must be accepted by the husband.

READ FULL ARTICLE :-

http://twocircles.net/2011may11/islamic ... qvzjNJ97IU

[fustrate_Bohra]

Marriage is something which can only be successful IF BOTH (HUSBAND AND WIFE) ARE HAPPY WITH EACH OTHER, if either one of them is not happy with the marriage than life of both will be mess. Word is least important, Divorce or Talaq or Khula does not make any sense if one doesn't want to live with the spouse.

Its so funny that Ullemas are debating on words and ignoring the facts that partners are not happy with each other and had decided to part their ways.

[Al-Noor]

avoid divorces but Islam allows it in extreme conditions and when every thing is tried out.

[ghulam muhammed]

Father must maintain son only till he's 18: Gujarat HC

Gujarat high court on Friday ruled that a parent is liable to maintain a son till he turns 18 and starts earning.

The HC made it clear that a parent is liable to maintain an unmarried daughter even after she attains an majority and is also liable to spend for her wedding. However, the same provision does not apply for a son. According to provisions of Section 125 of CrPC, a father or mother is not responsible to pay maintenance to a son once he turns 18 if he is not mentally or physically unfit.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city ... 466163.cms

[ghulam muhammed]

Muslim Women's Rights and Media Coverage

Despite the large number of positive court judgments in favour of Muslim women in India, the media prefers to endorse the view that once the husband pronounces talaq, the wife is stripped of all her rights. Similarly, articles by experts, while focusing on the need to declare instantaneous triple talaq invalid, pay little attention to the rights laboriously secured from the trial courts, the high courts and even the Supreme Court, by many Muslim women.

- See more at: http://www.epw.in/journal/2016/22/comme ... lBnZ5.dpuf

[qutub_mamajiwala]

Muslim Women's Rights and Media Coverage

Despite the large number of positive court judgments in favour of Muslim women in India, the media prefers to endorse the view that once the husband pronounces talaq, the wife is stripped of all her rights. Similarly, articles by experts, while focusing on the need to declare instantaneous triple talaq invalid, pay little attention to the rights laboriously secured from the trial courts, the high courts and even the Supreme Court, by many Muslim women.

- See more at: http://www.epw.in/journal/2016/22/comme ... lBnZ5.dpuf

that is because the clergy of deobandi, blah blah do not accept court verdict.
they want to live in democracy but do not want to accept its laws.
ur resident wahabi friend will also not condone the court verdict as it goes against its interpretation.
he has gone on record to say not to follow infidels law.

[SBM]

they want to live in democracy but do not want to accept its laws.

And so are are you brothers and sisters in RSS who have not done anything about discrimination against Dalits and many villages where Dalits are NOT allowed to drink water from the same well as you UPPER ECHELON brothers and sisters of RSS camp