Location:
Delhi
Address:
India, Delhi
Contact:
9873540498
Views:
2262
Rating:
   Loading... |
|
DESCRIPTION:
Man Help Delhi or Men Cell in Delhi (Ph: 9873540498) suggests Man Cell India helpline Relatives of men especiually women can’t be the respondents in domestic violence act 2005. The definition of respondents prohibits manifestly the launching of proceedings under the protection of the Act, 2005. As a matter of law as envisaged under the Act it is the women who is the aggrieved person qua the adult male person as defined in S.2)q) of the Act, The impleading of women member as the respondent in the petition shows the very mala-fide intention of the petitioner. Hence the petition along with merit dismissal against the women respondents as being not maintainable. That the petitioner/wife must claim on affidavit that she is unable to maintain herself. In the absence of such an affidavit her petition under DV Act & also her maintenance application both are not maintainable in the eyes of law & merits dismissal with costs. If any help needed then please contact:- man cell delhi is available 24 hours at our permanent email id aturchatur(at)yahoo(dot)com moblie :- +91-9873540498 The petitioner has filed false affidavit. In her affidavit to DV plaint u/s12 she specifically mentions that the whole plaint to be r/w this affidavit hence her whole plaint has become her affidavit. And within the petition she has mentioned many lies being discussed within the whole of the preliminary objections & also within answering paras of written statement. Hence her petition under DV Act is not maintainable in the eyes of law & is liable to be rejected for misusing the process of the court. That the applicant has failed to provide any medical reports, previous police complaint or other valid evidences in support of her false claims hence also this plaint u/s 12 r/w 18, 19, 20, 22, 23 is not maintainable in the eyes of law and the respondent no.1 vehemently raise objection in respect thereof. In whole of DIR Form-I, there is neither mention of mother-in-law of petitioner as a respondent nor in the whole DIR Form-I there is any single specific allegation against her (WRITE ABOVE LINE ONLY IF YOU ARE ABLE TO TRANSLATE THE DIR). Further, she is a woman whose name can not be included legally under the domestic violence act unless grave allegation against her is their within the domestic periphery of Hyderabad place which has been said to be the shared household. Further, she used to live separately from complainant & never shared any domestic relationship with her r/w written statement. Hence, inclusion of her name by petitioner/ summon to such a respectable woman / mother in law of complainant is not maintainable in the eyes of law. It is further respectfully submitted that, if the complainant alleges any grave allegation against any woman respondent for which the IPC applies and she has chosen to invoke IPC sections against such woman respondent then this is NOT a crime under domestic violence act as the domestic violence act is restricted to acts of violence committed within the domestic relationship and on road crimes can not be included under the domestic violence act 2005. In DIR Form-I, there is no specific allegation against Ms. PATI-KI-BEHEN-NAME who is an unmarried sister in law of complainant. Only one dated allegation is there against her whereas the fact is that on that date she was present at her job at tata almost 345kms away from matrimonial home r/w WS. Further, she was a working girl who used to live separately from the complainant & never shared any domestic relationship with her r/w written statement. Her name is being dragged in the case so that her marriage becomes difficult which is contrary to the very object of DV Act which is made to protect the women & not to be used as a tool to harass other women. In view of the proofs attached within WS contrary to the claims of complainant proving her falsity, petitioner has abused the law/ summon to PATI-KI-BEHEN-NAME sister in law of complainant is not maintainable in the eyes of law. And this act/conduct of the complainant is a clear cut abuse of the process of law & therefore this complaint under DV Act is liable to be rejected with exemplary costs. Rule 13 of the Rules prohibits the appearance of the complainant through an advocate. (Rule 13 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Rules, 2006). Regarding this CrPC 91 application is being submitted alongwith this WS. Hence her petition is not maintainable in the eyes of law & is liable to be dismissed with an exemplary cost in the interest of justice. Best Wishes & Happy Fighting false cases & SOCIAL STIGMA on you & family!!!. If any help needed then please contact:- man cell delhi is available 24 hours at our permanent email id aturchatur(at)yahoo(dot)com moblie :- +91-9873540498 
|