Sardar Vallabhbhai Patel and RSS

This is the excerpt from M.O Mathai’s book which was banned in India by CONGRESS Governments.

M.O Mathai likes to describe himself as ” Nehru’s Special Assistant and alter ego between 1946 and 1959, was reputed to be the most powerful man after the Prime Minister during the years he served Jawaharlal.



Page 243, 244 from “Reminiscences of the Nehru Age” by M.O Mathai


Author who was living with then PM Nehru in PM Residence and was interacting closely with various Political leaders of the day clearly indicates that Sardar Patel was actually interested in permitting RSS ( Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh ) workers to join the party CONGRESS. It was SickLiar Nehru who was ” Hopping Mad about RSS workers joining CONGRESS “.

This effectively proves that the CONGRESS has been lying about Sardar Patel’s views about RSS. They have been fooling Indian population about Sardar Patel’s views on RSS Since Independence.

SHAME on SICK-LIAR congress leaders and equally SICK-LIARs in the Indian Media.



Bahu can’t occupy in-laws’ own property: Delhi high court

Bahu can’t occupy in-laws’ own property: Delhi high court


NEW DELHI: A daughter-in-law has no right to continue to occupy the self-acquired property of her parents-in-law against their wishes, the Delhi high court has held in a significant order.

Justice A K Pathak in a recent verdict, made it clear that a self-acquired property doesn’t fall under the definition of a “shared household” enunciated in the Domestic Violence Act and a daughter in law can’t enforce her right in such a property.

In fact, HC went a step further, holding that even an adult son or daughter has no legal right to occupy the self-acquired property of the parents against their consent.

“Daughter-in-law cannot assert her rights, if any, in the property of her parents-in-law wherein her husband has no right, title or interest. She cannot continue to live in such a house of her parents-in-law against their consent and wishes. In my view, even an adult son or daughter has no legal right to occupy the self-acquired property of the parents; against their consent and wishes. A son or daughter if permitted to live in the house occupies the same as a gratuitous licensee and if such licence is revoked, he has to vacate the said property,” the court noted in its order.

HC was hearing an appeal by the daughter-in-law against a trial court’s verdict directing her to hand over peaceful and vacant possession of the property to her estranged father-in-law. In her plea in HC the woman said she is a legally wedded wife and has a right to live in the property from where her father-in-law wants her evicted.

She claimed that the property was purchased out of joint family funds. Accusing the father-in-law and husband of harassing her for dowry, she informed HC that she is living separately from her husband due to matrimonial discord and divorce proceedings are on. Under DV Act, the property is a shared household where she has the right to reside, the wife maintained.

But the father in law through advocate Prabhjit Jauhar told HC that he is sole owner of the self-acquired property. Jauhar also convinced the court that the property was not purchased from joint family funds and his son had no share in it.

The father-in-law furnished before the court proof that he disowned his son in 2010 who has since then been living separately.

Justice Pathak concluded that the legal position “which can be culled out from the above reports is that the daughter-in-law has no right to continue to occupy the self -acquired property of her parents-in-law against their wishes more so when her husband has no independent right therein nor is living there, as it is not a “shared household” within the meaning of Section 17(1) of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.”

HC also took into account lack of evidence to show that suit property was purchased from joint family funds.


Top court to decide if common-law spouses have right to alimony and property

They’re known as “de facto spouses.” Partners in a paperless marriage. Or, in this case, plain old Eric and Lola.

But there’s almost nothing ordinary about the tale of a 51-year-old Quebec billionaire businessman and a former Brazilian model, whose messy legal battle could change life for millions of Canadian couples.

Their case, which reaches the Supreme Court of Canada next Thursday, is expected to decide whether common-law spouses have the same rights as married couples to support and sharing of property after a break-up.

While the case is likely to have its greatest impact in Quebec, legal experts predict that if Lola succeeds in her landmark challenge, eight other provinces and territories that deny property rights to unmarried spouses, including Ontario, will be forced to rethink their legislation.

As a starting point, common-law spouses should have the right to both alimony and an equal share in property, argue lawyers for the Women’s Legal Education and Action Fund (LEAF), an intervenor in the case.

“Equality requires that all spousal relationships have the same essential ground rules and basic protections,” said Joanna Birenbaum, LEAF’s director of litigation.

That’s because in any spousal relationship, the partner who spends the most time caring for children, usually a woman, ends up economically disadvantaged. LEAF contends; whether they were married or living together, they have the same needs following a break-up.

While she admits her opulent lifestyle is far from the norm, Lola says she’s fighting on behalf of all Canadian women.

Dubbed Eric and Lola by the Quebec media after a publication ban was imposed on their names, they met in 1992 when she was 17 and he was 32. During seven years together, they had three children. She pushed for marriage; he said it wasn’t his cup of tea.

He provides $35,000 a month in child support and pays for a cook, two nannies and a driver.

She is seeking a $50 million lump sum payment and $56,000 a month in spousal support.

Looming over the case is a 2002 decision by the Supreme Court involving Susan Walsh, a Nova Scotia woman who sought a share of her late common-law husband’s assets. In that case, the court’s 8-1 majority upheld a section of Nova Scotia’s Matrimonial Property Act, which gives only married people a share in a partner’s property.

The court said excluding common-law couples was a way of respecting their decision to avoid marriage because of the legal obligations that go along with it.

LEAF argues it is time to revisit the Walsh decision, saying the court in 2002 did not have the benefit of social science research that shows when people move in together, they aren’t motivated by legal considerations.

In fact, North American research over the past decade has shown that most couples who live together are under the mistaken impression they already have the same rights as married couples.

Quebec has a higher proportion of couples living together than anywhere else in Canada — about 34 per cent. But under Quebec’s Civil Code, they have no rights or obligations.

Lola challenged the constitutionality of that regime.

In 2010, she won a partial victory when the Quebec Court of Appeal ruled that denying support to unmarried spouses violates guarantees of equality under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms — a decision that Eric and the Quebec government hope to reverse.

Link Here :–top-court-to-decide-if-common-law-spouses-have-right-to-alimony-and-property?bn=1

Put all new FIRs online: Delhi HC

Put all new FIRs online: Delhi HC

TNN, Dec 7, 2010, 01.18am IST
NEW DELHI: In a major move towards transparency in police functioning, the high court has directed the Delhi Police to start uploading all First Information Reports (FIRs) registered in the city onto its website within 24 hours of filing. The police are required to implement the order from February 1, 2011.

The landmark order, passed by a division bench comprising Chief Justice Dipak Misra and Justice Manmohan, said it’s the duty of the police to provide information and the accused does not need to move court to get a copy of an FIR.

“Fair and impartial investigation is a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution and presumption as regards the innocence of an accused is a right. Therefore, a person booked under criminal law has a right to know the nature of allegations so that he can take necessary steps to safeguard his liberty,” the bench said.

Earlier, additional solicitor general A S Chandiok and amicus curie Arvind Nigam submitted their suggestions on the matter.

The counsel had said that recording of an FIR was an official act of a public official in discharge of his or her official duties and, therefore, it was a public document within the meaning of Section 74 of the Evidence Act, 1872.

The court said an accused was entitled to get a copy of the FIR earlier than what’s prescribed under Section 207 of the Criminal Procedure Code (which says the FIR would be supplied through a magistrate’s order after the accused moves court).

Link Here :

SC defines rules for live-in couples


SC defines rules for live-in couples
To get benefits of marriage, a live-in bond has to be more than a one-night stand 
R Sedhuraman
Legal Correspondent

New Delhi, October 21
The Supreme Court today ruled that each and every live-in relationship could not be categorised as a “relationship in the nature of marriage” which entitles women to maintenance.

“In our opinion a ‘relationship in the nature of marriage’ is akin to a common law marriage” recognised in some countries in the absence of a formal marriage, a Bench comprising Justices Markandey Katju and TS Thakur said.

The Bench laid down five conditions for recognising a relationship as a “relationship in the nature of marriage.”

“Merely spending weekends together or a one-night stand would not make it a domestic relationship. In our opinion, not all live-in relationships will amount to a relationship in the nature of marriage to get the benefit of the Act of 2005. To get such benefits, the conditions mentioned by us must be satisfied, and this has to be proved by evidence,” the Bench ruled.

Writing the verdict for the Bench, Justice Katju further explained that “if a man has a ‘keep’ whom he maintains financially and uses mainly for sexual purpose and/or as a servant it would not, in our opinion, be a relationship in the nature of marriage.”

The Bench acknowledged that its view would exclude many women who “have had a live-in relationship from the benefit of the 2005 Act, but then it is not for this Court to legislate or amend the law.”

The Court took upon itself the trouble of laying down

the conditions as Parliament while enacting the law in 2005 had used the expression “relationship in the nature of marriage” and not “live-in relationship,” the Bench explained. Section 125 of CrPC provided for maintenance only to the legally-wedded wife, dependent parents and children. But the Domestic Violence Act expanded the scope to relationship “in the nature of marriage.” The Bench said it felt the need for interpreting it because a large number of cases of this nature would be coming up before various courts in the country. “In our opinion, Parliament by the aforesaid Act has drawn a distinction between the relationship of marriage and a relationship in the nature of marriage, and has provided that in either case the person who enters into either relationship is entitled to the benefit of the Act.”

Talking about the changes sweeping the society, the Bench said in feudal society sexual relationship between man and woman outside marriage was totally taboo and regarded with disgust and horror. This was depicted in Leo Tolstoy’s novel “Anna Karenina,” Gustave Flaubert’s novel “Madame Bovary” and the novels of the great Bengali writer Sharat Chandra Chattopadhyaya.

“However, Indian society is changing, and this change has been reflected and recognised by Parliament” by enacting the law against domestic violence, the apex court opined. The Bench laid down the definition in a case by a man challenging the claim of a woman that she was his wife.

The parameters for live-in couples

z The couple must hold themselves out to society as being akin to spouses.

z They must be of legal age to marry.

z They must have voluntarily cohabited and held themselves out to the world as being akin to spouses for a ‘significant period of time’. (The Bench underlined the words “for a significant period of time” without specifying any time period).

z The couple must have lived together in a “shared household”, as defined in Section 2(s) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005

Link Here :

HC for action against girls providing false evidence

Lovers-turned foes
HC for action against girls providing false evidence
Saurabh Malik
Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, October 14
The Punjab and Haryana High Court has called for action against girls seeking to push behind bars the man they had initially loved and even tied the knot with.

The call for initiating action for furnishing false evidence came after the High Court took cognisance of a large number of petitions filed by lovers-turned-foes. Dubbing it as an “abuse” of the court process, Justice Jaswant Singh also expressed the hope that the authorities concerned shall initiate appropriate action in such matters.

Taking up a petition filed by one such victim, Justice Jaswant Singh observed that directions had been sought for quashing an FIR for rape, criminal intimidation and other offences registered at a Hisar police station in October 2009 under Sections 376, 342, 506 and 120-B of the IPC on the basis of a compromise.

Justice Jaswant Singh observed the allegations against the petitioner were that he along with his co-accused took the complainant to a place in Delhi and raped her. The complainant was stated to have been kept at different places for nearly three weeks.

The petitioner’s stand was that he and the complainant were in love and solemnised marriage in Delhi, where his brother and mother were present. The couple also approached the High Court for protection, as they were apprehending threat to their life and liberty at the hands of the girl’s family, Justice Jaswant Singh observed.

Before parting with the order, Justice Jaswant Singh asserted: “In view of the fact that the petitioners have been acquitted, nothing survives in the matter. But, it is extremely unfortunate that an educated girl has irresponsibly levelled serious allegations against the petitioner and his family, resulting in petitioner suffering more than seven months in custody.”

Disposing of the petition as in fructuous, the Judge added: “In my opinion, such attempts amount to abuse of process of court. Experience informs us that the courts are flooded with such litigations. It is hoped that appropriate action under Section 193 of the IPC (punishment for false evidence) shall be initiated by the authorities concerned.

Link Here :

Scrutinise dying declarations minutely: SC


Scrutinise dying declarations minutely: SC  

New Delhi, May 17
The Supreme Court has held that a dying declaration should be scrutinised as minutely as possible since there is a tendency, particularly among wives, to implicate their in-laws in false cases of murder or attempt to murder. 

The apex court said courts should scrutinise such declaration with a “microscopic eye” to find out the truthfulness as the victims, at times, are bound to be influenced by relatives to implicate innocent persons. 

“The court has to examine a dying declaration scrupulously with a microscopic eye to find out whether the dying declaration is voluntary, truthful, made in a conscious state of mind without being influenced by the relatives present or by the investigating agency who may be interested in the success of investigation or which may be negligent while recording the dying declaration.”— PTI 

Link Here :