Bombay High Court upholds conviction of man for defaming wife

 Indulging in defamation is serious crime:

Jagdish k.gianchandani	11:39 AM (8 hours ago)
to bcc: me

Inability to prove his allegations that his wife committed adultery has cost a Thane resident dear. The Bombay High Court recently upheld conviction, sentence and compensation orders passed against a man in a defamation case filed by his wife.
The orders passed by the lower courts “did not suffer from any illegality or perversity requiring any interference,” said Justice S C Dharmadhikari of the High Court, dismissing the husband’s appeal.
The husband, now 50 years old, was pronounced guilty of defaming his wife and sentenced to two months’ simple imprisonment by a Magistrate’s court in December 2007. He was also directed to pay Rs 3,000 to his wife as compensation. He moved the Sessions Court against this order, but his challenge was dismissed exactly a year ago.
Thecasestartedwiththehusbandfilingapetition in court in August 1995 seeking divorce from his wife of seven years. Adultery was cited by the husband as one of the grounds for seeking divorce.
The wife received a copy of the petition in December that year and was shocked to read the allegations. The petition said: “Despite all efforts made by the husband and paying monthly maintenance regularly, the wife was residing at her parents place. Her conduct was such that she has been having illicit relations with third persons. There are several people who have seen her having such illicit relations.”
It also alleged that when the husband got to know of all this and confronted his wife, she told him it was her wish and individual decision to have physical relations with whomever she chose and that was none of his concern.
The wife served a legal notice on the husband fordefamingherinJanuary1996itself,butfileda case against him only two years later.
In her complaint the wife said that since she was illiterate, the complaint was read out to her by her brother and another person. Gradually, all her relatives and the locality in which she lived got to know about the allegations and they started distancing themselves from her. Some other people started teasing her as well.
While her defamation case was pending before the Magistrate’s court, the husband’s petition seeking divorce on grounds of adultery was dismissed, with the court specifically observing that he was unable to prove his allegations of adultery against the wife.
In the High Court, the husband argued that he had made the allegations in good faith. But AdvocateShrikantYadav,appearingforthewife, pointed out to the HC that the lower courts had specifically recorded findings that the husband could not even prove that he had conducted a proper enquiry before making his allegations.
Yadav also pointed out that the husband, though citing a specific incident, never approached the police with a complaint. He also failed to bring even a single witness in support of the allegations made by him. The High Court accepted these submissions and rejected the husband’spetition.Italsorejectedarequestmadeon the husband’s behalf to stay the operation of its order for some time.

Hc convicts husband for false charges of adultery, in divorce petition..pdf 172K   View   Download

Friday, June 21, 2013

Tenants can't force landlord to move kin out of property: HC

Tenants can't force landlord to move kin out of property: HC

Shibu Thomas, TNN | Jun 21, 2013, 04.35 AM IST


"A tenant or the court can't dictate a landlord on what is bona fide and reasonable need... landlord is the best judge of his requirements," said the judge. 
The high court set aside as "perverse" a lower court's order that directed the landlady's son and his family to move to Badlapur where her daughter-in-law has a house. This, despite the tenant owning a home in Dombivli. 

"The (lower) court wants the landlady's family to be separated, some members to live in Thane and others in Badlapur, when they have a house of their own in Thane," said the judge. "It is difficult to understand how the landlady's family can be directed to be separated and the tenant allowed to live on the rented premises, when, by her own admission, she owns a building in Dombivli." 

The flat is on the ground floor of Thane's Shrikripa Building, which the landlady, Sudha Barve, rented out to Ramesh Padhye in 1974. Once he died, Padhye's wife Ranjana and her two children continued living there. In the mid '90s, Barve moved court, seeking their eviction; she had complained that rents were not paid, a creche was run illegally from the flat and alterations were made to the flat without permission. Barve also said she stayed in a 300-sq-ft flat and needed the rented place to house her family comprising her divorced daughter, son, his wife and their two children. While the trial court in 2002 held in Sudha's favour, the appellate court reverse the verdict. It asked Sudha's son to move out with his family to Badlapur. 

During the pendency of the case, Barve died. The HC even said after her death, "it cannot be said the space would be enough for the family..." consisting of her daughter, son, daughter in law and their two children. It is to be noted that the family is a growing family and as such the requirement cannot be said to be fanciful.'' and struck down the appellate court order.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/mumbai/Tenants-cant-force-landlord-to-move-kin-out-of-property-HC/articleshow/20692102.cms

'This landlord has shamed other landlords and Christians

	THE TIMES OF INDIA
	Dear Reader,
	Your comment on the article ''Cops ‘frame’, assault innocent youth'' is now displayed on timesofindia.com.
	''This landlord has shamed other landlords and Christians. Act of Police is not shocking as they are known to be always involved in most wrong doings or atleast have been keeping eyes shut in such cases for return. But also note that many frustrated landlords have taken law in hand ( regrettably and very bad) as judiciary is slack, callous, and even siding as many advocates can do setting.''
	To reply to this comment , or see the whole conversation, click here.
	Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
	Regards,
	Team TOI

HC fines four complainants Rs 55,000 for wasting cops’ time by filing cases only to arm twist their rivals in disputes

But in one of my case one habitual nuisance tenant registered a false complaint on 100 and set in motion the police machinery for harassing and arm twisting  me as I protested his parking car in compound illegally. What relief will court grant me and what punishment will court / police give this antisocial person. .....Alok  

HC fines four complainants Rs 55,000 for wasting cops’ time by filing cases only to arm twist their rivals in disputes

Abhijit Sathe and Bapu Deedwania mirrorfeedback@indiatimes.com

Police complaint as a tool to put pressure on your rival in a dispute is no longer as safe an arm twisting method as it used to be.
Taking note of how people file police complaints only to gain an upper hand in a conflict and then rush to courts to have FIRs quashed once the purpose is solved, wasting all the hardwork cops put into investigations, the Bombay High Court has fined four persons in two such cases a total of Rs 55,000.
The order delivered by Justice B R Gavai will not only deter people from filing police complaints they do not wish to pursue to their logical conclusions, but also bring much needed relief to an over-burdened police force.
The Rs 55,000 fine collected in these two cases, Justice Gavai ordered, would go the Mumbai Police Welfare Fund.
One of the two cases involved a dispute between the owner of an apartment and a builder, while the other involved a complaint filed by an employee of a businessman against his boss.
The first case was, in fact, a typical Mumbai real estate dispute and also quite symbolic of the situations where cops get used as a threat by one of the parties.
The fight was over a two-bedroom apartment booked by Sushila Patni in Thane's Manpada area in May 2010. The builder, J M Mehta, had lodged a complaint at the Kapurbaodi police station against Patni and one of his own employees, Mukesh Savla, accusing them of changing the price of the apartment in the original agreement.
Patni and Savla later filed a counter-complaint saying that Mehta had issued threats to them and was trying to extort money. Both parties, however, later reached a settlement and approached the High Court seeking directions to quash the FIR.
In the second case, Thane-based oil trader Suresh Thakkar was accused of cheating by his employee Ramesh Kharat. Kharat had alleged that his name was used by Thakkar to open several bank accounts and transactions were carried out without his knowledge.
Kharat filed a complaint at the Vartak Nagar police station. Accordingly, an FIR was lodged and the police began its investigations, calling for documents and recording statements of concerned people.
Kharat, however, later arrived at a settlement with his boss and moved High Court seeking quashing of the FIR. 
Delivering identical orders in both cases, Justice Gavai said: "There is no element of public law involved in the crime (in both cases). I find that no purpose would be served by keeping the criminal proceedings pending except burdening the Criminal Courts which are already overburdened. I find that in the interests of justice, the criminal proceedings are required to be quashed. However, at the same time, the costs need to be saddled on the parties for setting in motion the police machinery for settling their dispute."
While he directed Mukesh Savla, Sushila Patni and Jitendra Mehta to pay Rs 10,000 each to the police department, Suresh Thakkar was asked to pay Rs 25,000.
Advocate Ashok Saraogi, who appeared for Patni and Savla in the first case and Thakkar in the second, said the judge directed the public prosecutor to ensure that the parties involved paid the fine.
DCP (operations) Sheela Sail on Saturday confirmed that she had received all three cheques and that the amount would soon be credited to the Police Welfare Fund.

Dear Tenants Tresspassers

Dear Tenants / Tresspassers:

In ur heart u will agree that Mumbai rent act is one sided and grossly favouring tenants.
However there r some grounds on which lanlord the shelter provider can file case in rent act courts/ small causes court.
There r some ground on which landlord can go to city civil and or even criminal court.
But if both the parties live with understanding and fellowship then such situation can be avoided.I request u to not to do anything to harm the harmony and compelling us to go to court. Pl. note that going to court means money flows out like water. U have to chase ur advocate, court clerk, xerex wala,stamp wala,typing wala etc.Gather evidences,documents, witnesses.Worst is dates after dates in court will have to spend.Easily one case till end can cost anywhere from Rs.50000/- to 2 lacs.And that is not the end rather it is begining.Then  may have to approach higher courts.
So for any wise person court is the last choice.
Hope u will avoid a situation which warrnts legal action.I for one want to avoid courts. Rather I am one who would like panchas to decide small issues as by going to court matters worsen as some advocates add spice to the simple case and make it acidic / ulceritic.
So I repeat do not give any opportunity which calls for filing of cases against each other. Same is very taxing on time and money and B.P..By the way u all know what r the issues and avoid them.
Let us resolve issues by peacefully settling same.Once in court then there is no reversal.Then I would like to not sit down but fight to finish.
If there r any comments or suggestions then pl. write back to me.

Thanking you,

Alok Tholiya

http://wikimapia.org/2705028/P

 24 months ago Bharat Purohit   -1  
This house was built by Dr. Kalyanbaksh Purohit in 1960. He had 6 sons. Dr G.N. Purohit, Nand kishore Purohit, Triloki Nath Purohit, Kailash Nath Purohit, Kashi Nath Purohit, and Ravindra Nath Purohit. Manmohan Purohit, Bharat Purohit, Deepak Purohit,and Madhukar Purohit were the next generation. The children of Manmohan Purohit are Sonu, Shradha, and Vishwas. The daughters of Bharat Purohit, Deepak Purohit, and Madhukar Purohit are Deepshikha, Deeksha, Nidhi, Manavi, Mahima, Anjali, and Maitri. Ravindra Nath Purohit's children are Vishal and Mitul Purohit. Kashi Nath Purohit's children are Darshana and Vandana Purohit.

 http://wikimapia.org/2705028/P