Cruelty Abuse of a "African American Woman " for their own Greed

 1[Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.



Explanation.—For the purposes of this section, "cruelty means"—


(a) any wilful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life, limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or

(b) harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.]

  credit > https://justlaw.co.in/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Article-SS-498-A-Dowry.pdf

 


1
SUPREME COURT GUIDELINES GIVING NEW DIMENSIONS TO
SECTION 498 A IPC - LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENTS IN
THE LAST THREE DECADES


by Sriranga. S, Advocate , Bangalore


We must ask ourselves how far we have come. What distinguishes us in what
we perceive to be a civilized society, from the State of Nature theorized by Hobbes,
Locke and Rousseau in the 17th Century? The state of nature, described by Thomas
Hobbes as “
bellum omnium contra omnes,” or “the war of all against all,” in which

only the fittest survived in the society of men, without a common power.

It is a well-known fact that no Society can succeed without the rule of law or a
necessary social order, which is an essential prerequisite for peace, liberty, stability,
economic growth, development, and host of other characteristics which we now take
for granted. This profound fact has resonated in our minds when we are reminded of
horrific atrocities that are occurring on a daily basis in our society, from the Nirbhaya
gang rape to the Nithari killings, and the list goes on. We are quick to condemn, in the
most vociferous manner, inhumane and barbaric atrocities committed on fellow
citizens and stand united when faced with such an outright threat to the Rule of Law
that we have strived to achieve. On the other hand, we ought to ask ourselves,
whether this outrage in the face of an obvious threat would be equally demonstrated
when encountered with an implicit threat to our liberty and equality.

The Indian Legislature has passed various enactments with the intention of
protecting the rights of women and to eliminate cruelty against women in all forms.
Some of these significant Legislations are The Protection of Women from Domestic
Violence Act 2005, The Sexual Harassment of Women at the Workplace (Prevention,
Prohibition and Redressal) Act 2013, The Commission of Sati (Prevention) Act 1987,
the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961, the Immoral Traffic (Prevention) Act 1956, The
Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act 1986, The National
Commission for Women Act 1990 and The Indian Penal Code 1860. These issues are
not peculiar in the Indian context and such laws are enacted in various countries with
similar object. Some of these laws worth mentioning are The Australian Domestic
Violence and Protection Orders Act 2001, The Japan Prevention of Spoucal Violence
and the Protection of Victims 2001, The Malaysia Domestic Violence , The Mauritius
Protection from Domestic Violence Act 1997, The Singapore Women’s Chapter
1961, The South Africa Domestic Violence Act 1998, The Sri Lanka Prevention of

2

Domestic Violence Act 2005, The United Kingdom Domestic Violence, Crime and

Victims Act 2004 and the Zimbabwe Domestic Violence Act 2006.

One of the evils which has plagued the Indian society is the crime relating to

Dowry. Even though the Dowry Prohibition Act came into force in the year 1961, the

crimes relating to it seemed to have been on the increase which has lead to the

requirement to bring in more stringent Legislations. One set of amendments in this

direction which amended the Indian Penal Code, the Code of Civil Procedure and the

Indian Evidence Act have been introduced by the Criminal Law (Amendment) Act

1983 (Act No 43 of 1983) and the Criminal Law (2nd Amendment) Act 1983 (Act No

46 of 1983.

One of the amendments introduced by the 2nd Amendment Act is Section

498A which reads as follows:

Husband or relative of husband of a woman subjecting her to cruelty

Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman,

subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a

term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.

Explanation: For the purpose of this section, “cruelty” means

a. any willful conduct which is of such a nature as is likely to drive the

woman to commit suicide or to cause grave injury or danger to life,

limb or health (whether mental or physical) of the woman; or

b. harassment of the woman where such harassment is with a view to

coercing her or any person related to her to meet any unlawful

demand for any property or valuable security or is on account of

failure by her or any person related to her to meet such demand.

This provision of law has now had a history of three decades and has been the

subject matter of various judgments of all Courts in India including the Supreme

Court of India. The Courts have gone on expanding and explaining the scope and

ambit of this provision of law and Courts have also tried to adapt the provision to

various new developments and requirements which have arisen from time to time.

From the laudable objective of this provision contained in the Amending Act of 1983,

3

it has now reached a stage where the Supreme Court in Arnesh Kumar vs. State of

Bihar and Anr reported in (2014) 8 SCC 273, has held that Section 498A has a

"dubious place of pride amongst the provisions that are used as a weapon rather than a

shield by disgruntled wives".

Indian Society has come a long way since 1983, when Section 498A was

incorporated into the Indian Penal Code by the Criminal Law (Second Amendment)

Act, 1983. The same Amendment which also added Section 113 to the Indian

Evidence Act that presumed the abetment of suicide of a woman by her husband or a

relative of her husband in the event that she committed suicide within 7 years of the

date of her marriage and it could be shown that her husband or his relatives had

subjected her to cruelty. It is apparent, more than thirty years after the Amendment

that what was promulgated as a legislation to criminalize the victimization of helpless

women against domestic violence and dowry, has now become the double-edged

sword of the very society that rooted for it to begin with. Perhaps a glance at the

legislative intent behind the inclusion of Section 498A into the Indian Penal Code,

would give us some perspective on the change that it has undergone in terms of its

usefulness of implementation.

In the 1980’s and before, incidences of “Dowry death” and domestic abuse as

a result of dowry or lack thereof, were rampant and surely and steadily rising. Many

women suffered and continue to suffer atrocities in silence, out of fear and

helplessness with being unable to change their situation in life. Fear of divulging the

truth of their domestic situation, lest graver offences be meted out to them and unable

to muster up the courage to do anything about it, thousands of women were tortured

and killed and their lives destroyed due to nothing other than greed. In order to

prevent and make punishable instances of cruelty against women and the subjection

of women to brutality and inexplicable exploitation, Sections 498A and Section 304 B

(which defines dowry death) were incorporated into the Indian Penal Code by Act No.

46 of 1983 and 43 of 1986. With the intent of protecting women from marital

violence and abuse, the practice of Dowry and other related crimes was criminalized

in the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961, the Criminal Procedure Code, the Protection of

Women from Domestic Violence Act, the Evidence Act, and of course the Indian

Penal Code.

Significant amongst the above legislations was the Dowry Prohibition Act,

1961 which consolidated the anti-dowry laws that were in existence and formed a

4

uniform code on dowry prohibition that was to be read in consonance with the

relevant Sections of the Indian Penal Code.

A perusal of the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Criminal Law( 2nd

Amendment) Act of 1983 explains the reasons that led to the Amendment to be that a

Joint Committee of the Houses, examined the working of the Dowry Prohibition Act,

1961 and gathered that cases of cruelty by husbands and relatives of the husband

which culminated in suicide or murder of helpless women constituted only a small

fraction of the cases involving such cruelty which resulted in general amendments

which not only tried to address the issue of dowry deaths but also other forms of

cruelty and harassment.

India is also party to a host of International Human Rights Agreements,

Covenants and Instruments, which contemplate the abolition of dowry related crimes,

many of which are albeit on a theoretical level. Among these instruments are the

Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic,

Social and Cultural Rights and the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of

Discrimination against Women (CEDAW), which was ratified by India in 1994.

CEDAW is noteworthy as it contains specific reference to the abandonment of

“traditional attitudes by which women are regarded as subordinate to men or as

having stereotyped roles which perpetuate widespread practices involving violence or

coercion, such as dowry death.”

It would be of relevance to note that many other nations also have laws

relating not only to cruelty against women, but cruelty with respect to Dowry in

particular, which include Nepal, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Kenya, among others.

Nepal has an enactment called the “Social Customs and Practices Act” that

criminalizes the practice of dowry. Bangladesh has a “Dowry Prohibition Act, 1980,”

which criminalizes the taking and giving of dowry with a maximum penalty of 5

years of imprisonment. This Act was amended in 1986, which made the penalty for

claiming Dowry a non-bailable and non-cognizable offence,1 with certain exceptions

in the case of persons to whom Sharia Law applies. The equivalent enactment in the

case of Pakistan is the “Dowry and Bridal Gift (Restriction) Act, 1976 which restricts

the amount of Dowry/Mehr that can be given to PKR 5000/-. However, there is no

mention of dowry specifically in the Penal Code of Pakistan.

1 Ordinance 36 of 1986

5

Some of the judgments of the Supreme Court which have interpreted the width

and ambit of Section 498A are,

a) Vanaka Radhamanohari vs Venaka Venkata Reddy (1993) 3 SCC 4

affirmed in Sarah Mathew vs Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases

(2014) 2 SCC 62; The Supreme Court held that the maxim

vigilantibus, et non dormientibus, jura subveniunt is not applicable to

offences relating to cruelty to women in matrimonial cases. The

question should be judged in the light of Section 473 of the CrPC and

therefore the limitation prescribed in Section 468 of CrPC would not

strictly apply.

b) Ramesh Kumar vs State of Chatisgarh (2001) 9 SCC 618; It has been

held that Section 498 A and 306 of the IPC are independent provisions

and constitute different offenses. Proving of offense under one

provision does not depend on the other.

c) Giridhar Shankar Tavade vs State of Maharashtra (2002) 5 SCC 177;

Supreme Court has explained as to what constitutes cruelty. Supreme

Court has held that the word cruelty as expressed by the Legislature is

attributable to two specific instances explained in the explanations.

One has an element of physical injury and the other lacks the element

of physical injury. One is patent and the other is latent. However, both

are equally serious in nature. Court has also held that even under

Article 136, Court can take note of mis-appreciation of evidence by the

lower Courts if it leads to utter perversity.

d) Reema Aggarwal vs Anupam (2004) 3 SCC 199; The term husband

has been defined to mean and specifically include such persons who

contract marriages ostensibly and cohabit with such women in the

purported exercise and role as a husband. Such person would be

amenable to be punished under Section 498A. A person indulging in

bigamy comes within the sweep of the said provision and there can be

no impediment in law for liberal construction in this regard.

e) Ramesh vs State of TN (2005) 3 SCC 507; The starting point of

limitation would be when the woman leaves the matrimonial home or

the last act of cruelty.

THE DEVIL IS A LIAR

 THESE UNWARRANTED WICKED -DANTARIA  WITCHCRAFT SPELLS THAT THESE DAMN COVEN  FEMALES HAVE BEEN DOING TO TRY AND BLOCK ME TRY AND MOCK ME AND TO TRY AND MAKE ME SUFFER LOSSES OF MY CREATIVITY , LOSSES OF MY CONFIDENCE , LOSSES OF MY SECURITY MONEY ETC THIS IS MY PUBLIC NOTICE THAT THESE ARE THE SAME NONSPIRITUAL -EVIL THIEVES WHO ALSO STOLE MY INHERITANCE AND HAVE COMPLETELY VIOLATED ME , MY LIFE PARTNER AND MY IMMEDIATE FAMILY - THEY HAVE COMPLETELY TRIED TO INTERFERE WITH MY STABILITY AND THE POSITIVE  LIVING  ENVIRONMENT WHILE INTENTIONALLY INVADING MY RIGHT TO PRIVACY AND ALSO MY RIGHT AGAINST THESE EXTREMISTS RACISTS ATTACKS TARGETING ME WHILE I AM IN WHAT SHOULD BE THE PRIVACY OF MY PWN BED , BATHTUB AND WHILE I USE THE TOILET ! THE FACT THAT THERE IS A LOWLIFE TRAMP WHO WOULD ACTUALLY FEEL AS IF THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO COME HERE AND ABUSE ME SIMPLY BECAUSE THEY WANT WHAT I HAVE PROVES THAT THESE CRIMINALS ARE INSANE AND INCOMPETENT - NOTE THESE LIARS ALSO MADE FALSE CLAIMS AGAINST ME WHILE UNDER OATH - THEY HAVE BEEN STALKING ME STEALING FROM ME AND SPREADING LIES THROUGH OUT THIS COMMUNITY - THESE ARE THE LOWEST OF LOW- LIFES AND THEY HAVE INTENTIONALLY BEEN PREVENTING MY ACCESS TO INFORMATION OF COURT PROCEEDINGS THAT ACTUALLY PERTAIN TO ME , WITH THE INTENT TO DEFRAUD THE COURTS AND HAVE A CLONED VERSION  OF ME APPEAR TO STEAL MONEY SO THAT THEY CAN ALL LIVE OFF OF FUNDS THAT ARE IN FACT MINE THEY HAVE ALSO HIRED -HIT MEN ATLEAST 6 TIMES TO COME AND KILL ME - THEY THEN TOLD THE COURT THAT I HAD DIED AND ALSO DID INSURANCE FRAUD AND FILED A CLAIM OF DEATH IN MY NAME , THEY HAVE WRITTEN BAD CHECKS , OPENED CARDS , STOLEN JEWELRY FROM MY SAFE DEPOSIT BOX AND HAVE HIDDEN INFO FROM ME SO THAT I AM UNABLE TO EVEN HAVE ANY INFORMATION ABOUT THE WHEREABOUTS OF MY LOVED ONES BLOCKING DELETING MESSAGES AND COMMUNICATIONS FROM MY EQUIPMENT , THESE ARE DOMESTIC TERRORIST ATTACKS THAT ARE IN FACT TAKING PLACE RIGHT HERE WHERE I LIVE IN SEATTLE WA AND THEY CLAIM TO BE IN LAW ENFORCEMENT ? YET THEY ARE KNOWINGLY HERE TO CAUSE ME PAIN SUFFERING MENTAL EMOTIONAL DISTRESS AND ARE PLOTTING ON MY LIFE ! I HAVE INFORMED   COAST PROPERTY MANAGEMENT ABOUT THESE FACTS I HAVE INFORMED THE POLICE AND THE DOJ  THEY SO FAR HAVE NOT DONE ANYTHING TO STOP AMY OF THESE ACTS OF VIOLENCE THAT HAVE BEEN ON GOING FOR YEARS AND BECAME MORE AGGRESSIVE WHEN I MOVED IN HERE ON 6/11/2021 WITHIN 4 HRS OF MOVING IN SOMEONE HAD MY CAR TOWED WHICH COST ME $600 TO GET BACK  WITH THE PROPERTY MANAGER BEING ADAMANT ABOUT THERE BEING NO PARKING IN THE FRONT LOT AND NOW THESE SAME DEVILS ARE BEING ALLOWED TO COME AND PARK IN THE SAME  DAMN PARKING  SPOTS THAT THEY SWORE TO ME AND MY DAUGHTER THAT WE COULD NOT PARK IN ! THIS IS THE WORST ABUSIVE AND INTRUSIVE MISTREATMENT BY A COLLECTIVE OF ORGANIZED CRIMINALS THAT I HAVE EVER PERSONALLY HAD TO EXPERIENCE AND I PROMISE THAT I WILL BE BRINGING CHARGES TO EACH AND EVERY PERSON ORG OR CORP THAT HAS A HAND  OR FINGER IN THE GANG STALKING ABUSE THEFT AND TORTURE OF AN INNOCENT ELDERLY -VENERABLE "BLACK" WOMAN  WHO HAS NEVER DONE ANYTHING TO THESE MONSTERS AND WITH THE MOST HGH GOD AS MY WITNESS AND MY COUNSEL YOU WILL NOT ESCAPE JUDGEMENT FOR ALL OF YOUR INTENTIONAL  DAMAGES - YOU ARE ALL EXTREMELY EVIL DEMONIC DESPICABLE  DEVILS AND YOU HAVE GONE TO FAR AND HAVE INTENTIONALLY CAUSED TOO MUCH DAMN  HARM PAIN SUFFERING LOSS AND DISTRESS TO ME FOR NO REASON EXCEPT THE FACT  THAT YOU THOUGHT OF ME AS AN EASY MARK SINCE I WAS TRYING TO RECOVER FROM THE REMOVAL OF A TUMOR FROM  MY SPINE WHICH DEVELOPED AS A RESULT OF ALL OF  THE LAST  GANG STALKING MALICIOUS  HARASSMENT AND VIOLENT ATTACK'S   FROM SNOHOMISH COUNTY  IN WHICH I WAS NOT PROTECTED BUT ALSO MADE  LAW ENFORCEMENT AWARE OF WHAT WAS IN FACT GOING ON WITH THEM CHOOSING INSTEAD TO ANNOUNCE THAT I WAS A WHISTLE-BLOWER TO THE COMMUNITY WHO THEN BEGAN TO GO AFTER BREAKING UP MY RELATIONSHIP BY SETTING MY PARTNER UP WITH A PROSTITUTE SO THAT SHE COULD SPREAD AN STD  TO HIM  HOPING TO CAUSE US BOTH TO DIE ......

SHARING >NEW LAW Provides Much-Needed Relief from Abusive Litigation by Domestic Violence Perpetrators

 https://www.lasher.com/new-law-provides-much-needed-relief-from-abusive-litigation-by-domestic-violence-perpetrators/

 

SHARED FROM>

If you have any questions, please contact James Stensel at stensel@lasher.com.

Posted on December 10, 2020 by James Stensel

 

In March 2020, the Washington State Legislature passed legislation against “abusive litigation.”  Abusive litigation is regularly perpetrated by domestic violence abusers and has been referred to as “legal bullying.”  . In addressing this problem, the Legislature recognized that family law cases including dissolution's, legal separations, parenting plan actions, and protection order proceedings are commonplace for abusive litigants. Under RCW 26.51.et. seq., the Legislature summarized that:

[I]individuals who abuse their intimate partners often misuse court proceedings in order to control, harass, intimidate, coerce, and/or impoverish the abused partner. Court proceedings can provide a means for an abuser to exert and reestablish power and control over a domestic violence survivor long after a relationship has ended. The legal system unwittingly becomes another avenue that abusers exploit to cause psychological, emotional, and financial devastation. This misuse of the court system by abusers has been referred to as legal bullying, stalking through the courts, paper abuse, and similar terms. The legislature finds that the term “abusive litigation” is the most common term and that it accurately describes this problem.

While having no effect on a person’s constitutional right to access to the courts, the new laws grant the court additional discretion to terminate, mitigate, and address abusive litigation.

Under this legislation, a victim may assert a claim of abusive litigation if the party filing or advancing the litigation is currently or previously an intimate partner, and has been found to have committed domestic violence against the victim. At the same time, the court must find that the claims, allegations, and other legal contentions are not warranted under the law, or that the factual contentions are not supported by evidence, or that the issue presented was previously filed and disposed of unfavorably to the party advancing the claim.

Under the new law, the courts are now empowered to enter an order restricting abusive litigation, which may be requested by party motion, motion response, petition, answer, or even by the court upon its own motion. Upon request, the court will set a motion hearing to determine whether the litigation meets the definition of abusive litigation. If the court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that a party is engaging in abusive litigation, the action will be denied. In addition, the court will enter an “order restricting abusive litigation,” which will impose all costs and reasonable attorney fees incurred, and will impose a not less than 4- and not more than 6-year pre-filling restriction upon the party found to have engaged in the abusive litigation. The abusive litigator will be required to seek permission from the court before proceeding with future litigation against the other party.

For domestic violence survivors who are continuing to be dragged through the courts by their abusers, this new law provides a much-needed avenue for relief from abusive litigation, effective January 1, 2021.

 

 

 

Featured Post

YOUR ACTIONS WERE SO DISRESPECTFUL

ITS NOT ENOUGH YOU TO BE ALL OVER TOWN - BUT NOW YOU HAVE DONE THE MOST DISTURBING DISRESPECTFUL ACTION BY COMING TO WHERE YOU KNOW I RESIDE...

Office of Victims of Crimes -Offers assistance to Victims

"The Office for Victims of Crime, a part of the Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice, seeks to enhance victims’ rights and services for all victims across the United States. The Office for Victims of Crime offers a wealth of resources for the crime victims field, including publications, training and technical assistance, funding opportunities, and more."