11-13-2006, 10:59 AM
<!--QuoteBegin-Mudy+Nov 12 2006, 11:37 PM-->QUOTE(Mudy @ Nov 12 2006, 11:37 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin-->If I am not mistaken her sister-in-law had filled against Renuka Chowdhury and extended family using 498a.
<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->One of the most important features of the act is the woman's right to secure housing, the statement said, adding that it provides a right to reside in the matrimonial and shared household, whether or not she has any title in the household.
The act provides for breach of protection order or interim protection order by the respondent as a cognisable and non-bailable offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to Rs 20,000 or both.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is most rediculous provision.
I know one case where daughter-in-law is harassing mother-in-law and son can't do anything because law protects daughter-in-law. Mother-in-law was Govt School Principal in Delhi and married to top cop (died recently) and now bed ridden with Hip fracture and other injuries because of daughter-in-law's conduct. Her son is a executive in IT company and daughter is a Lecturer in Delhi Univ and married to VP of top 5 IT company in India. They can't do anything because law protects daughter-in-law.
Here law failed to differentiate between crime and extra privilege given to woman and exclusively to daughter-in-law.
This law is abused by upper midle class woman.
[right][snapback]60734[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Folks, I'm just thinking out loud on this issue. This ridiculous law actually makes look Islam attractive to an average male on the street.
Don't be surprised if a poor guy rushes up the nearest Mullah after getting harassed.
Is the law applicable for Muslims, or the Muslim's personal laws holds precedence?
<!--QuoteBegin--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->One of the most important features of the act is the woman's right to secure housing, the statement said, adding that it provides a right to reside in the matrimonial and shared household, whether or not she has any title in the household.
The act provides for breach of protection order or interim protection order by the respondent as a cognisable and non-bailable offence punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year or with fine which may extend to Rs 20,000 or both.
<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is most rediculous provision.
I know one case where daughter-in-law is harassing mother-in-law and son can't do anything because law protects daughter-in-law. Mother-in-law was Govt School Principal in Delhi and married to top cop (died recently) and now bed ridden with Hip fracture and other injuries because of daughter-in-law's conduct. Her son is a executive in IT company and daughter is a Lecturer in Delhi Univ and married to VP of top 5 IT company in India. They can't do anything because law protects daughter-in-law.
Here law failed to differentiate between crime and extra privilege given to woman and exclusively to daughter-in-law.
This law is abused by upper midle class woman.
[right][snapback]60734[/snapback][/right]
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Folks, I'm just thinking out loud on this issue. This ridiculous law actually makes look Islam attractive to an average male on the street.
Don't be surprised if a poor guy rushes up the nearest Mullah after getting harassed.
Is the law applicable for Muslims, or the Muslim's personal laws holds precedence?