Abolish, woman the weaker gender

Time has come to abolish the narrative that woman is a weaker gender. Women are matching men in every field often leaving men behind. But the sad reality is that the courts & laws are being used by women as tools not just to impose their power/will on men but to extort money as well. Extortion is rampant especially in matrimonial cases. Merely based on allegations wheels of justice system are set in motion in favor of women and scant regard is paid to merit. Courts are also more than happy to play to the gallery and continue to treat women as weaker section/gender.

            Idea that it is the responsibility of man/husband to maintain woman/wife must be nipped in the bud in contemporary times. Instead, at best discussion should be around limited support to non-working woman/wife until she becomes independent within a specific time limit. All maintenance laws in favor of women must be reinterpreted to reflect the same. This is beyond imagination that a wife who accepts being involved in adultery can still walk away with maintenance support by claiming she was involved in occasional adultery. So is the fact that courts are misinterpreting laws allowing disgruntled wife to live in a house she never lived in as long as it belongs to husband or relative of husband. To make men responsible to maintain women forever is an absolute injustice being meted out to them. Decision after Decision it is clear that merit is set aside and decisive factor is if party who approached the court is woman. In fact, core objective of every law which is to be fair is being repurposed to suit the narrative that women are a weaker section of society, hence deserve special treatment in law, and are at same pedestal as children.

            In the rush to favor women, policies/laws are such resulting in giving power to women, instead of empowering them, which is being abused thoroughly against men. Narrative that women are weaker section is so intrinsic to our society/law that they are often let go without any punishment even after proven false allegations by them, resulting in no fear of law in them. Misuse of rape law is rampant to destroy agency of man and make him slave. As per 2020 NCRB data almost 50% of Rape cases filed by women were under the category “Sex on the Pretext of Marriage” in which woman claims that male partner promised marriage to have sex with  then did not fulfil the promise. Most of these cases are filed on the whims and fancies of disgruntled women and clearly show first they can play card of “agency of woman” and when things don’t work out then card of downtrodden and weaker. Above all even if findings of the courts are that women filed false cases, however heinous,  they are either let go without any punishment or simple rap on the knuckle. No man can claim to be untouched by onslaught of women. Not only poor and common men, but lawyers, doctors, engineers, politicians, MLAs, MPs, IAS officers, IPS Officers, Judges etcetera  are impacted. Victim men are left with no other option but to lead a suffocating life or die by suicide and for men in India getting married is almost like a crime committed by them consequences of which they must suffer.

            This blogger would end by stating that it is often said law is fluid and reflects realities of society. Hence, it would not be wrong if law starts treating women at par with men instead of treating them weak in contemporary times. Presumption that woman is right and man is wrong must be obliterated from all the laws in favor of women effectively against men. Persons making proven false allegations must be dealt with iron hand as per law. Finally, attempt in maintenance cases filed by women claiming to be destitute should be to make them independent but dependent forever. 

MRA TIKLOO

www.menwelfare.in

www.saveindianfamily.in

Battle Royale - Feminist Versus MRA

Finally, judgement has been reserved and fate of "Men of India" sealed. Intervening NGOs – Men Welfare Trust (MWT) and HaridyaNFH – representing "Men of India", effectively argued through their learned counsels J. Sai Deepak and Raj Kumar Kapoor respectively, against removal of Exception 2 to s. 375 IPC (Rape Law). Arguments/Averments were presented in front of special bench of Delhi High Court constituted to hear PIL praying to bring non-consensual sex by husband on his wife under the ambit of Rape Law meaning removal of Exception 2. Govt. of India (GOI), main respondent, for political reasons pushed the can down the road and refused to take any stand. Govt. of Delhi through its counsel though initially opposed, with full force, removal of Exception 2, inviting appreciation from men of country, but after the judgement was reserved requested its submissions be not considered. Last minute stand of Govt. of Delhi, unprecedented in every sense, may be due to back channel understanding with feminists or fear of feminists resulting in cold feet on the part of Govt. of Delhi. Nevertheless, men especially Men's Rights Activists (MRAs) could not be more ecstatic as it resulted in Feminists and MRAs coming face to face in a constitutional court, wait of many years was finally over.

If history is of any indication, when men got embroiled in a battle brought to their doorsteps and their pride was at stake, they fought to win. This blog is an attempt to capture excerpts from final submissions, all encompassing, of learned counsel J. Sai Deepak representing Men Welfare Trust (MWT). The excerpts/final submissions represent a thought process countering “Constitution of India is feminist”. Further, they form weapons of men in instant battle and all future battles against feminists.

EXCERPTS

…………

That said, the issue at hand is not merely about consent, but also about context which the Petitioners refuse to see or acknowledge. The multi-layered and multi-variable nature of this equation has been reduced to the sole issue of “consent” which is precisely where the Petitioners and the Intervenor disagree. 

…………

A. That the prayers sought by the Petitioners are beyond the scope of any jurisdiction or power that this Hon’ble Court may wield under any law or the highest law, namely the Constitution, since if such prayers were granted, they would have the effect of creating a new class/species of offence, which is beyond the pale of the power of judicial review. In short, the prayers sought by the Petitioners require this Hon’ble Court to violate one of the most fundamental, sacrosanct and basic features of the Constitution, namely the doctrine of separation of powers and that too in the matter of criminalisation;

B. That the doctrine of separation of powers is not meant to be a mere transactional construct for division of territory/turf between the various organs, but is meant to preserve the right of the “Republic”, meaning the people, to participate in law and policy-making, lest it becomes the preserve of the few.

………….

D. That in view of the submissions of both Learned amici which lean in favour of the Petitioners’ position, in the interest of balance and from the perspective of natural justice, inputs ought to have been sought from an additional amicus. In this regard, attention of this Hon’ble Court is drawn to the fact that there have been instances wherein two amici representing divergent positions have been appointed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court to assist it on matters of constitutional significance.

…………

E. That contrary to the Petitioner’s contention, Exception 2 to Section 375 does not in any manner envisage or require a wife to submit to forced sex by the husband nor does it encourage the husband to impose himself on the wife. Also, it is untrue that there are no remedies whatsoever to address non-consensual sex between spouses. A clear reading of Sections 376B of the IPC along with Section 198B of the CrPC, Section 498A of the IPC and the Domestic Violence Act would clearly show that there is a clear legislative intent behind them and there exists a framework to criminally prosecute a husband who refuses to respect consent;

 

F. That the legislature through the Exception 2 to Section 375 of the IPC and through the creation of a separate legal ecosystem for dealing with spousal sexual violence has indeed criminalised it, without terming it “rape” within the meaning Section 375 of the IPC. The said distinction in labelling and treatment, which is grounded in respect for the complexity of the institution of marriage and not ‘patriarchy’, is both reasonable and based on intelligible differentia, thereby satisfying the touchstones of Articles 14, 15, 19 and 21;

…………

H. That arguendo the existing legal framework that criminalises spousal sexual violence is indeed inadequate, inadequacy does not constitute unconstitutionality, and it is certainly not for the Judiciary to remedy it since it falls within the exclusive preserve of the Legislature. The Judiciary and that too only the Hon’ble Supreme Court under Article 141, and no High Court under 226, can fill in a legal void or address obvious lacunae. Neither is this Hon’ble Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 141 (since it cannot), nor does the instant case involve a legal void or an obvious lacuna;

…………

the exhortation by the Petitioners to conform to such “international norms and standards” reeks of coloniality and goes against the grain of their own submission that Exception 2 to Section 375 is less constitutional since it is “colonial”. In other words, the Petitioners’ position on what is ‘colonial’ and what is “international” is selective, convenient and constitutionally fallacious; 

L. That even going by the Petitioners’ erroneous call to authority citing “international norms and standards”, the movement the world over has been towards gender-neutral laws in the realm of sexual violence. And yet, the irony of the case at hand is that the Intervenor which is named Men Welfare Trust has been actively campaigning for gender-neutral laws and preservation of the institution of marriage, whereas the Petitioners have sought gender-specific prayers and creation of a gender specific offence at the expense of the marital institution; 

M. That in view of several judgements of High Courts and the Supreme Court recognising the extent of abuse of existing provisions such as Section 498A of the IPC by alleged victims, the law on sexual violence itself needs an overhaul, introduction of gender-neutrality being but one aspect of it. To add to this crucible by striking down Exception 2 to Section 375 would be to add to existing inequities and injustice.

…………

At best, a Court of law can prod the Legislature into expediting the process of consultation and legislation if the legislature deems it necessary, but under no circumstances can a Court of law direct the direction or outcome of the process. In fact, the Court cannot even influence the process by issuing an advisory opinion on matters which are outside the scope of its constitutional remit. 

…………

The Petitioners’ invitation to this Hon’ble Court to transgress the lines drawn by the doctrine of separation of powers is deeply disturbing for it could have disastrous consequences for the public’s respect for all institutions as well as the Constitution. Both constitutional morality and institutional independence would stand undermined if the Petitioners’ prayers were to be granted;

…………

v. The argument that consent alone matters and marriage changes nothing in this regard, is legally and practically baseless. The factum of marriage translates to serious obligations on the part of the partners, from conjugal expectations and rights to financial obligations, mental health obligations and finally duty towards the progeny. Considering this, to contend that the institution of marriage cannot form the basis of Exception 2 to Section 375 is to deny the obvious. Further, it is evident from the language of Section 375 and Section 376B that ‘will’ and ‘consent’ are related but not identical, which explains the reason behind the use of “without consent” in the latter provision. In a marital relationship, since conjugal expectations are a two-way street, partners may choose to accede to each other in matters of sex out of a variety of considerations, not all of which necessarily amount to cruelty. In such circumstances, ‘consent’ is given as a matter of spousal intimacy, although ‘will’ may be absent. If every such instance were to be treated as a cut-and-dried instance of “marital rape”, the only way partners in a marriage or spousal-like relationships can ever hope to have sex without the fear of accusations of rape is by drawing a detailed written agreement on the steps to be observed for courtship or mating, or by creating a detailed evidentiary record of every act of intimacy, or by inviting a third party to act as a witness, none of which is healthy for the survival of the institution of marriage. This would be the precise consequence of a blinkered approach to consent without context getting its due;

………….

In this regard, the Petitioners have relied on the judgment of QueenEmpress v. Kandhaia and Others 1884 SCC OnLine All 142 and S. Khushboo v. Kanniammal & Another (2010) 5 SCC 600 to argue in the context of Section 40 of the IPC that the IPC recognises only an offence which is synonymous with a prohibited ‘act’ and does not recognise a distinction based on the offender or the context. This reliance is entirely misplaced since the IPC contains several provisions whereunder the same ‘act’ committed by different dramatis personae takes a different shape or results in a different outcome. For instance, the starkest distinction based on the offender is the one that is struck between adults and juveniles, which equally extends to sexual offences. The said distinction is observed both from the perspective of the victim as well as from that of the accused. The existence of the POCSO Act despite provisions relating to sexual offences in the IPC is the clearest proof that the definition of offence under Section 40 of the IPC is not blind to context, relationship, age or any other valid consideration. Simply put, the Petitioners argument that its prayers merely seek enlargement of the class of offenders is baseless in light of the legislative reticence to use ‘rape’ in the context of spousal relationships. Accordingly, none of the case laws cited by the Petitioners which permits a Court to enlarge the class of offenders is applicable to the instant case. This also addresses the question of fair labelling of an offence since the Legislature has consciously avoided using “rape” in the context of a spousal relationship, not to protect the spouse, but those connected with them, namely the families and the products/issues of the marriage – the progeny;

…………

E. Conclusion 

21. In conclusion, it is reiterated that the Intervenor is not opposed to recognition of spousal sexual violence. Its limited position is that spousal sexual violence already stands criminalised, as discussed above, and therefore any grievances relating to the inadequacy of the same can be addressed only by the Legislature and not the Judiciary. This is because inadequacy or perceived inadequacy is a matter of legislative policy and not a ground for constitutional challenge. Further, it is the position of the Intervenor that it is possible to protect individual dignity and the marital institution without sacrificing one for the other. Finally, a gender-neutral approach to such issues would be consistent with calls for gender equity.

MRA TIKLOO
www.menwelfare.in
www.saveindianfamily.in
Men Helpline: 8882498498

Rational Nexus - #MarriageStrike and #MaritalRape

#MarriageStrike which has been trending on twitter from last few days is not just a mere hash tag but voice of millions of men. It represents a vociferous message by men of India to power holders that if they are pushed to corner they would protest, may be in digital world first, but if push comes to shove they would resort to protest on streets. There is a larger message here to famous three pillars of democracy - legislature, judiciary and executive - STOP.

For far too long in the name of women’s rights, affirmative action, in the grab of "constitution is feminist" (infamously articulated by an SC Judge once) and for many more other reasons rights of men are being trampled. In the name of giving (doling out may be apt word here) rights to women through laws/provisions net effect is rights of men are being taken away which is nothing but a message of oppression. If opposite side (mostly feminists) argument is accepted that in history women were oppressed, is the solution to now make women as oppressor and men oppressed that too in twenty first century by putting historical perspective at the centre? Answer is clear "No" yet that is what exactly biased laws/provisions do. Men are being pushed to total submission and if history has any lesson for us it is the start of an end.

Rational nexus (emphasised) between #MarriageStrike trending and timing of #MaritalRape PIL being heard in Delhi High Court can not go unnoticed. Succinctly, put case of petitioner represented by infamous feminist lawyer (amongst Men’s Rights activists) is that a non-consensual sexual intercourse or sexual acts by a husband on wife must fall under the definition of section 375 of IPC i.e. should be categorised rape. And counter argument is that it may be an offence covered under Domestic Violence Act , 498A IPC, 377 IPC etc. but can not be categorised under section 375 definition. So more than anything respectfully put it is an ego of petitioner represented by highly egoist lawyer that is at stake here. As rightly stated by one of the Hon’ble Judges in bench hearing the matter that they are not sitting to find ways to make non-consensual sexual intercourse or sexual acts by husband on wife, if true, as rape and to call it rape there must not be intelligible differentia and rational nexus to the objective of carving out exception in section 375 which provides immunity to husband from being called rapist. 

....

....

Exception 2.Sexual intercourse or sexual acts by a man with his own wife, the wife not being under eighteen years of age, is not rape

....

....

According to this blogger exception just provides protection to husband from being called as rapist and no which way provides immunity from prosecution, for offence committed, under common law (IPC read with CrPC) when wife already got immunity from being called rapist based on “non-consensual” sex with husband in section 375 of IPC itself. In fact, to go further wife got additional protection and for non-consensual sex with husband she can not be prosecuted at all under any category of offences. Other way of looking at it is that under Article 14 of constitution which speaks of equality before the law for equals (not for unequals) , man and woman are equal partners to marriage, exception just provides protection to man being called rapist in the light of woman is already protected under section 375 of IPC from being called rapist.

To end this blog I would like to reproduce a tweet which was an answer to a question “What the hell is a #MarriageStrike?” from a vocal Bollywood personality. And answer to the question can’t be more apt. Hence #MarriageStrike must continue until #MaritalRape PIL is junked.

MRA TIKLOO

www.menwelfare.in

www.saveindianfamily.in

Men's Helpline: 8882498498

Colonization of India by Feminists

In a perfect India demanding one’s rights should be appreciated but when such demands start to interfere with the rights of others that is when not just distinction be drawn but such flimsy demands be exposed. For feminists in India boundaries must be pushed and sky is the limit but pushing  boundaries too hard may result into chaos and fall from the sky can be dangerous resulting in obliteration. 

Recent turn of events may shed some light on convoluted demands of feminists, sozzled in power, and if not called out may have potential to challenge constitution of India, turn criminal jurisprudence upside down and possibly another step towards colonizing India. Recently, in IIT Guwahati an alleged crime of sexual assault, in the month of March 2021, came to light. As per standard procedure of criminal jurisprudence, imbibing constitution of India, alleged accused – student of IIT Guwahati, already in jail almost for four (4) months, was granted bail in August 2021 by an order of Hon’ble High Court of Guahati – a constitutional court. While deciding on the grant of bail to student, innocent till proven guilty, Hon’ble High Court delved into investigation being complete, charge-sheet being filed, prima facie no scope of student tampering with evidence or even influencing witnesses and academic credentials of student. Anyone with iota of knowledge of law would subscribe to the order and if not order can be  challenged in superior court. However, as is always the case feminists and affiliated organizations are up in arms against Hon’ble Justice who granted the bail and why not because they believe in pushing boundaries. There are calls against disciplinary action against the Hon’ble Justice doubting his credibility. A famous T.V. anchor/journalist, a vocal feminist, ran a show demanding stern action against Hon’ble Justice by bringing in various feminists on the panel. Student was shamed on the show by calling him perpetrator of crime or rapist without the word “allegedly” and so called seasoned journalist allowed this to happen intentionally. An attempt was made to create a narrative that Hon’ble Justice has committed a sin by granting bail and must be punished like a Asura (demon) in Hindu scriptures. It is interesting, from another perspective it can be said real demons are feminists and Hon’ble Justice did his Karma. In their demand to keep student behind bars, feminists even taught India a lesson in inhumanity that student, innocent till proven guilty, must remain behind bars and he should not get fair chance to defend himself.

Much less is said about the management of IIT Guwahati – alma mater of student - better it is. As soon as bail was granted to student a new narrative was created that alleged victim is being slut-shamed, threatened and so her father. And then came decision to expel student, dashing all hopes of student, indicating management clearly bowed down to the pressure of feminists. Though Hon’ble High Court kept academic credentials of student in mind while granting bail but management had no such prudence. 

A bright young student, still innocent, has been snatched of his life and liberty and been convicted already. No one, especially management of IIT Guwahati, can answer who will be responsible if student gets acquitted?

MRA TIKLOO

www.menwelfare.in

www.saveindianfamily.in

Men's Helpline: 8882-498-498

#TarunTejpal Fight Back

Recent 527 pages long judgement by Hon'ble Sessions Court of Goa acquitting Tarun Tejpal (TT), former Editor-In-Chief of Tehalka Magazine, reads like a mystery novel, exhaustive though, in which Hon'ble Judge unravels the mystery slowly and steadily. For readers outcome is known already yet a worthy read. Hon'ble Judge was asked to decide if version of woman pertaining to sexual assault at two occasions dated 7/11/2013 and 8/11/2013 was true beyond reasonable doubt. And since there was a version of TT as well, instead of a simple denial, it made it easy for Hon'ble Judge to decide whose version was supported by evidences on record. In the end, Hon'ble Judge concluded that since prosecution could not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and version of TT that there was drunken banter between them seemed believable, hence total acquittal. 

Few highlights of judgement that turned around the case in favour of TT are as follows:

Lift Circuit 

From Para # 243 to 265 of judgement, Hon'ble Judge elucidates if lift was in-circuit/stationary for two minutes, period of first alleged sexual assault, with its doors closed as claimed by prosecution. Testimony of every single witness connected to the matter was analysed including technicians from Mitsubishi Elevator India Pvt. Ltd., manufacturer of lift,  and even the manual of lift on record was gone into. Hon'ble Judge without hesitation concluded not only it could be established from CCTV footages on record that doors of lifts opened twice on the ground floor in the said period but also none of the testimonies of prosecution's witnesses could prove if there was way to set the lift in-circuit/stationary for two minutes with doors closed. 

CCTV Footages

It is settled in criminal jurisprudence that prosecution can bring on record only those evidences supporting its case. It is expected onus is on Defence to bring on record evidences supporting its case. But something unheard of happened. Hon'ble Judge concluded that Investigating Officer (I.O.) destroyed the CCTV footage from 1st floor which could have backed the claim of TT that both the parties exited 1st floor by mistake on 7/11/2013 during the time period alleged assault took place in a closed lift thereby denying opportunity to Defence to debunk the claim of woman. Further, from CCTV footage of ground floor on  8/11/2013 it was clear that TT never pulled woman into lift by grabbing her wrist. There were other instances evident from CCTV footages, which Hon'ble Judge called most neutral evidence, proving woman's narrative can not be trusted. 

Defense Witness 4 (DW4)

Testimony of DW4 was categorised as unimpeachable by Hon'ble Judge. DW4 turned the case of prosecution upside down. His testimony was of particular significance as he was the first person, woman met after the alleged first assault on 7/11/2013. It is interesting to note prosecution did not present him as its own witness in fact woman not only removed his name in a third version of complaint sent out via e-mail on 18/11/2013 to Managing Editor Shoma Chaudhary of Tehalka but subsequently from statements to I.O. and Metropolitan Magistrate. Woman could not satisfactorily answer when asked for the reason to remove the name of DW4. As per testimony of DW4, woman informed him on 7/11/2013 after the alleged first assault that she is flirting with TT followed by a detailed discussion, in afternoon of 8/11/2013, about what transpired between her and TT on 7/11/2013, which obviously was in support of TT and leading to woman hiding facts in the eyes of Hon'ble Judge. It was revealed by the cross-examination of woman that although in her second version of complaint on 16/11/2013 she accepted  to have met DW4 and confided to him about the alleged first assault but then subsequently claimed to have never informed DW4 about the assault a clear attempt to discredit DW4 as witness. 

State of Mind of Woman

Hon'ble Judge goes in detail describing the state of mind of woman after the two alleged assaults.  To prove woman's state of mind reliance is made on various WhatsApp chats, SMS messages and CCTV footages on record by sewing them together beautifully. Never ever questioning the character of woman because of her various sexual encounters in the past and two consensual sexual encounters with the VIP guest, referred as Grandpa by woman, on 8/11/2013 and 9/11/2013 past midnight which were few hours after two alleged assaults in the nights of 7/11/2013 and 8/11/2013 respectively, Hon'ble Judge tries to answer if woman can be trusted for making allegations there is no eyewitness to. Hon'ble Judge concludes that behaviour of woman overall was contrary to as claimed by her being traumatised, scared and shocked after assaults.

In conclusion, this blogger would like to make following points:

• Below lines from judgement describes an important trait of woman, quintessential to trial, whose false and frivolous allegations put an innocent person, proven, on a path where he lost his dignity, self-respect, livelihood and many lives associated with him were severely impacted. One would think only in a movie one would come across a character as played by Jim Carrey in - Liar Liar - but guess what there is one in real life now. 

• There is no choice but to fight back false and frivolous cases/allegations even if there is a choice still one must fight back to be instrumental in bringing judgements like one discussed in this blog. The said judgement would inculcate fear in the minds of accusers which is what need of hour is given every biased law can be easily twisted to set the mighty machinery of System in motion against innocent persons.

• If this blogger needs to guess what would have made woman to make false allegations then a possible reason seems once woman told daughter of TT on 8/11/2013 about her drunken banter with TT on 7/11/2013, daughter of TT confronted TT in turn TT confronted woman. Things started to take downward spiral after that and woman eventually had a fear of loosing job. But real reason can only be revealed by woman now that allegations could not stand the scrutiny of law. 

Post-Script- An indirect message from Hon'ble Judge is don't manipulate complaint in the influence of lawyers, feminists etc. as it becomes impossible to back it during trial. 

MRA Tikloo

www.menwelfare.in

www.saveindianfamily.in

 

Men of India Being Fed to Dogs

Today, while consuming my daily dose of legal news at Livelaw.in, I came across a story which filled me with cocktail of emotions - amusement, anger, anxiety, disgust, fear, horror, relief , emptiness - some of the few I am able to articulate but many more. Story was about the bail application, approved by Hon’ble Supreme Court (SC), of an Octogenarian (84 years old man) who was booked under Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act for raping a minor, allegedly. He could only get the reprieve from top court once DNA report clearly indicated that he has not fathered the child born on 5th July 2020 to the complainant. All courts below Hon’ble SC rejected his bail application despite his pleadings that he is unable to perform sexual activities at such an old age. Further Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta while rejecting his bail application recorded submission of Public Prosecutor that medical report of Octogenarian supports contention of the allegations essentially meaning he is possibly a fertile man adding to his troubles. In short, he could get bail (no other way owing to the nature of allegations) once the child was born and DNA test could be performed, delaying his bail which resulted into several months of his incarceration or may be more. Without going into details of case, which blogger is not privy to anyway, Hon’ble SC enlarged Octogenarian on bail, rightly so, as one of the major allegations of complainant was found false. Question one needs to ask if complainant can make false allegation about the paternity of child what else she can lie about. May be almost about anything. As per submission of Octogenarian to Hon’ble SC it is out of the landlord-tenant dispute a false case has been filed. This seems to be a classic example of how at the drop of a hat laws pertaining to rape and POCSO Act, not limited to, are being misused to settle civil disputes. Men of India are being fed to dogs. Their hard-earned respect and livelihood are shredded into pieces by women sozzled in the power of gender-biased laws. Above all whole eco-system is spinning round the clock in giving impetus to such false allegations by women. I hope now that Octogenarian has got the bail order from none other than Supreme Court of India he would be able to cope up with the trauma he had to endure and  may continue to live peacefully, if allowed, in his remaining years in this world .

 As a society we need to introspect where are we headed. It is an open secret that false rape cases by disgruntled live-in partners/girlfriends is norm now and rape, a heinous crime, is being trivialized day after day. Newspapers are filled with stories of gangs of girls/women working to extort money from men or implicate them in false rape cases state after state. Despite knowing the reality hands of cops are tied to register FIR in rape case as law is such. This gives an indication that all three pillars of democracy viz. the executive, the legislature and the judiciary are telling men of this country if they indulge in consensual sex outside marriage or before marriage, they would pay the price in terms of their lives, livelihood and respect. And it is quite possible last bastion, proviso in Indian Penal Code (IPC) 375, saving husbands (read men) from marital rape may fall soon causing all hell to break loose. If such brazen misuse of gender-biased laws continues the day is not that far when parents would stop praying to be blessed with sons and possibly repressive gender under the burden of gender-biased laws would declare war on opposite sex. Laws such as “Rape Law” were made so strict with presumption that no woman would lie about being sexually assaulted. It is now clear in the light of umpteen number of false rape cases not just presumption was wrong but there was no basis of such presumption except that in country like ours a woman has always been treated as goddess by society. But it seems women of country want society to treat them as just human beings and human being as such is very complex species capable of things which are unimaginable. 

Before signing off this blogger firmly believes first step in making women mortal is to have gender-neutral laws and severely punishing those involved in filing false cases.

References:

1. Link to the story covering bail application of Octogenarian: https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/sc-grants-bail-to-84-year-old-man-after-dna-reports-161900 

2. Rape Law: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/623254/

3. Link to false rape story (one such) : https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/bombay-high-court-fines-woman-rs-25-000-for-false-rape-complaint-report-2285822 

4. Order of Hon'ble High Court of Calcutta in the case of Octogenarian: 

5. Order of Hon'ble SC granting bail to Octogenarian:

MRA Tikloo

www.menwelfare.in

www.saveindianfamily.in

TripleTalalq Law in India - Monumental Blunder

                       

                        OPEN LETTER TO HON'BLE PM

Respected Sir

On 30th July 2019 your government (govt.) could finally muster numbers for passing THE MUSLIM WOMEN (PROTECTION OF RIGHTS ON MARRIAGE) BILL, 2019 in Rajya Sabha and bill is now a law, hereinafter called TripleTalaq law, after the nod of Hon’ble President.  This is apparent that your govt. like others in the past used its brute force of majority in Lok Sabha and political maneuvering in Rajya Sabha to pass the bill in both houses without much deliberations. Despite data made available by NCRB over the years and still continue to point to gross misuse of existing gender-biased laws causing havoc in Indian society. Laws like IPC 498a, DV Act, 2005 are just couple of examples of gender-biased laws whose gross misuse has been pointed out by various courts of this country. Hon’ble Supreme Court went even step further to observe misuse as “Legal Terrorism”. When history would judge Triple Talaq law, gender-biased, it would not be about rights of Muslim women but its misuse.  

This goes without saying TripleTalaq law is an addition to the existing pile of gender-biased laws, would sit at the top actually, staring in the eyes of men of this country in the name of women’s rights. Not just the TripleTalaq law gender-biased but targets particular community which is much worse. After years of fight by sufferers against existing gender-biased laws various checks and balances were put in place which arrested indiscriminate arrests of husbands and their dear ones on mere allegations of wives. But still full reprieve from arrests is far cry as pointed by NCRB data.  With TripleTalaq law we are heading back to the era before 2014 when in-discriminatory arrests owing to gender-biased laws on mere allegations of wives were norm and shook the conscience of nation.  

A lot was debated in both houses w.r.t to bill corresponding to TripleTalaq law. Both sides debated the bill from the perspective of rights of women but no one highlighted prospective misuse based on official data available of misuse of other similar kind of gender-biased laws. This was a blunder of monumental proportion. TripleTalaq law not only reaffirms talaq-e-biddat (instant talaq) null and void by legislative action already confirmed by Hon’ble Supreme Court but goes a step further to criminalize instant talaq. A simple reading of TripleTalaq law indicates that all a disgruntled wife or anyone in her blood relation has to do is to walk into Police Station and state husband has pronounced instant talaq on wife allegedly. Sufficient to say not just instant talaq pronounced by words has been criminalized but through electronic means as well. Draconian provisions of the TripleTalaq law are summarized below:

• Arrest of Husband.
• Bail of Husband without hearing wife is not possible. 
• Only compounding can get early relief to husband accused of    instant talaq.
• In any case custody of children would be handed over to wife    plus monthly subsistence allowance.

Reading of above provisions would indicate criminal jurisprudence has been thrown out of the window. An alleged accused has a right to fair trail but if alleged accused cannot even get a bail without complainant being heard, which itself can be subjected to misuse by complainant for not being available on the date of bail, then getting justice can be forgotten too. Under the garb of TripleTalaq law other laws pertaining to custody of children and maintenance have been given skip too as wife would get subsistence allowance and custody of children without any consideration to merit.

In electronic form alleged instant talaq pronounced can be heavily misused and may result in conviction or total submission by husband because wife is expected to have access to electronic gadgets etc. of husband if living with husband

Just to summarize Tripletalaq law would become an extortion tool for disgruntled or adulterous wives or those needing just separation. It effectively, takes away right of a person to divorce by inculcating fear through criminal provision. Through this law much talked about fear of Muslim wife being given instant talaq has been transferred to husband which in no means can be called justice. This law is nothing but perfect revenge of a Muslim woman through State for practice which was medieval and not approved by Islam. Various Islamic countries have dealt with instant talaq in a much better way keeping it under the ambit of civil dispute. Laws of various Islamic countries must have been considered before drafting the bill which obviously was not paid heed to.

Your Hon’ble Law Minster’s defense of bill in Rajya Sabha was much shallow. To justify the bill he went through the history of law making and counted laws which made religious/societal practices null and void and criminalized them as well. Effectively, claiming that your govt. is well within right to do the same but wrong done in the past can never justify another wrong. Argument that legislature is there to legislate and courts to interpret doesn’t hold water either if data suggests that a specific category of laws has tendency to be misused historically. In that scenario, legislature is duty bound to take into consideration learning form past while drafting a law. 

Existing TripleTalaq law is recipe for disaster for a Muslim community and sets a wrong precedence by converting Divorce, a civil matter, into criminal matter which may in future become applicable for other communities too. Through this open letter it is requested  that a notification must be issued that checks and balances to stop misuse of law including but not limited to like Crime Against Women (CAW) cell process, mediation, CrPC 41a notice etc. kicks in immediately. In parallel laws of other Islamic countries to ensure rights of both the parties are secured without any prejudice must be studied and best provisions from those laws must be incorporated in TripleTalaq law. No doubt provisions of criminality, subsistence allowance and child custody from TripleTalaq law must be removed immediately. 

MRA Tikloo

www.menwelfare.in

www.saveindianfamily.in