Some very useful information for farmers in using natural techniques to get rid of the pests
( without using pesticides )
land in police station
Fatehabad, October 18
Due to a skewed sex ratio in this part of the country, getting brides for youths has become a tedious job, particularly for those belonging to economically weaker sections and having lesser landholdings.
“Procuring” brides for a premium is common practice in villages and smaller towns due to the availability of a lesser number of girls as compared to the boys.
In one such incident, a quarrel over the payment of an agreed amount to a “go-between” at Ratia town landed the ‘baratis’ as well as the bride in the police station on Sunday, where the matter was resolved after a lot of persuasion by the police.
The incident occurred in a marriage palace on Tohana Road of Ratia town, when the bride refused to go with the bridegroom after the Anand Karaj ceremonies, until his family paid the agreed amount to her widowed mother and a “go-between”, who negotiated the “deal” for the marriage.
The bridegroom’s father, Kuldeep Singh, a resident of Nikuana village of the district, said he had “struck a deal” with a mediator, Gurmeet Singh, for the marriage of his son, Jaskirat Singh, with Komal, daughter of a widow, Paramjit Kaur, a resident of Nehar Colony at Ratia.
He said under the deal, he had agreed to pay Rs 30,000 each to the bride’s mother as well as the mediators, Gurmeet Singh and two others, including a woman.
A quarrel erupted when the bridegroom party tried to leave for their village along with the bride and the mediators refused to allow them to take away the girl till their money was paid.
The mediators took away the car’s ignition key and called the police for intervention in the matter.
Kuldeep Singh said he had already paid Rs 30,000 to the girl’s mother and would pay the mediators’ “fee”, when the girl settled in their house for a few days.
The matter was later resolved in the police station, when the bridegroom’s father, Kuldeep Singh, gave a written undertaking that he would pay the money on October 24, when his family would host a party in the village to celebrate the marriage.
While the incident points towards the difficulties villagers are facing for finding brides for their marriageable youths, it also reveals that in some societies, even a reverse dowry system has started due to scarcity of marriageable girls.
Link Here :
A rethink has been initiated for
Section 498 A of IPC by the Law Commission of India’s ‘Consultation
paper-cum-Questionnaire.’ The law meant to protect married women from the abuse
of dowry and cruelty has been misused by some women.
Rethink on ‘Legal
What is 498 A— Section 498A was introduced into IPC by the Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act, 1983 to prevent cruelty to a woman by her husband or his relatives that was reportedly rampant. In order to make the impact of this section deterrent in nature, the crime was made punishable with imprisonment which may extend to three years and also liable to fine.
A rethink on 498 A— After witnessing an unprecedented hue and cry over the use and misuse of Section 498 A, The Law Commission of India has come out with a document, “Consultation Paper-cum-Questionnaire regarding Section 498A of Indian Penal Code (IPC),” at the initiative of the Supreme Court through the Ministry of Law and Justice, Government of India to elicit ‘informed public opinion.’
In scores of cases across India, the courts have witnessed misuse of section 498 A, while deciding disputes of domestic nature. The law, designed to help women regain social and economic empowerment in a highly patriarchal society, has been misused in several cases, as is observed even by the apex court. As was in the case of Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand ( 2010) and Sushil Kumar Sharma v. UOI (2005), where not only the husband but all his immediate relations were implicated under false charges.
Such acts of ‘over-implication,’ are often resorted with the sole motive to wreck personal vendetta, unleashing a sort of ‘new legal terrorism.’
What should be done to rein this tendency of ‘abuse’, ‘over-reach’ or ‘over-implication’, which of course cannot be the justifiable purpose of criminal law? To find a solution, The Law Commission in its consultation-paper has crystallised at least two different views. One view, which finds support from the observations of the apex court and also the recommendations of Malimath Committee’s report on Reforms of Criminal Justice System, is in favour of ‘relieving the rigour’ of section 498A of IPC by making the offence under the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) as compoundable and bailable instead of non-compoundable and non-bailable.
The other opposite view echoed, inter alia, by the Ministry of Women and Child Development is in favour of maintaining the status quo. In their view, the provisions of section 498A of IPC have been specifically enacted to protect vulnerable married women, who are the victims of cruelty and harassment at the hands of their husbands and their close relatives.
The consultation paper also brings to the fore a third view with some variants, which seem to cut across the two extreme positions as mentioned above. One variation is that the offence under section 498A of IPC should be made ‘compoundable’ with the permission of the court, as has been done by the State of Andhra Pradesh. However, there is sharp difference of opinions on the second variant, namely, whether the offence under this section should also be made ‘bailable’, at least with regard to husband’s relations.
Moreover, while the Commission is appreciative of the need to discourage unjustified and frivolous complaints, ‘it is not inclined to take a view that dilutes the efficacy of s. 498A to the extent of defeating its purpose- to protect women against atrocities.
However, having adopted this clear stance, the Commission has hastened to add : ‘A balanced and holistic view has to be taken on weighing the pros and cons. There is no doubt a need to address the misuse situations and arrive at a
rational solution – legislative or otherwise.’
The Commission is in search of a ‘rational solution – legislative or otherwise’ through its questionnaire. It has suggested that there is a dire need to create awareness about the penal provisions of the section amongst the poor and hapless rural women ‘who face quite often the problems of drunken misbehaviour,’ by having ‘easy access’ to the Taluka and District level Legal Services Authorities and/or credible NGOs. The Commission has also reminded the lawyers and the police, what is expected of them ‘morally and legally.’
Perhaps the more pragmatic point that the Law Commission has made relates to the linkage of section 498A of IPC with the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Such a linkage is evident at least in two respects. Firstly, in the exposition of ‘domestic violence’ under section 3 of the Act that encompasses the situation set out in the definition of cruelty under section 498A of the Code. This implies that there exists commonality of objective between the Code and the Act in terms of providing protection to married women from ‘domestic violence’ or ‘cruelty’.
Secondly, there is also a ‘functional-linkage’ as is found in the provisions of the Act itself that makes the Magistrate play pivotal role in protecting the married women.
The critical question still remains to be answered is, how to prevent the abuse of section 498A without diluting its deterrent effect? To answer this central issue, we need to remind ourselves that women seek defence outside home only under duress, and the protective umbrella of section 498A offers it.
The problem is essentially civil in nature and, therefore, is required to be handled by the civil court under the cognate provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, and not by the criminal court under penal provisions of section 498A. This would enable the civil court to sort out matters of over-reach and over-implications with the added advantage of exploring the possibility of matrimonial reconciliation.
In the event, the Magistrate decides that a particular case falls in the realm of criminal law without the possibility of resuscitating the matrimonial relationship, he may pass an appropriate order for its trial by the criminal court.
The writer is Director (Academics), Chandigarh Judicial Academy, Chandigarh.
Link Here :
Chandigarh, July 20
For those still new to the entire concept of the Unique Identification Authority of India (UIDAI), they just need to drop in one of the 23 Aadhaar enrolment centres operational in Chandigarh with identity, address and birth proof.
The Aadhaar numbers are randomly generated unique identification numbers issued after capturing biometric characteristics of an individual that is different from any other card, as it cannot be duplicated. Every person issued the card will be getting a 12-digit unique number that’s going to be amassed in the central database. The Tribune has jotted down a few steps that you might want to know about.
Just walk down to one of the Aadhaar enrolment centres to obtain an application form with proofs of identity, address and date of birth. Fill up the form that will have the details of your demographic information, including name, address, gender, date of birth and father’s address. The second stage of enrolment includes the applicant’s photograph, iris impression and fingerprints of both hands along with thumbprints are captured. Applicants will be then given a receipt of acknowledgement and can expect their Aadhaar cards to reach them within three months.
Proof of identity: Any one of these – passport, PAN card, ration card, voter ID card, driving license, government photo id cards, NREGA job card, photo id issued by a recognised educational institution, arms license, bank ATM and credit cards, pensioner photo card, freedom fighter photo card, kisan photo passbook, address card having name an photo issued by the department of posts, certificate of identity having photo issued by a Group A gazetted officer on letterhead, citizenship certificate with photo.
Proof of address: Passport, bank passbook, bank statement, ration card, voter ID, driving license, insurance policy, government photo ID cards, NREGA job card, arms license, pensioner card, vehicle registration certificate, registered sale and rent deed, card having photo issued by the Department of Posts, caste and domicile certificate having photo issued by the state government.
The Aadhaar cards will help the cardholders avail various services, including getting a bank account, LPG connection etc. Meanwhile, residents who don’t have sufficient identification documents will have a card that would help them in availing various services. The interesting fact about the card is that it cannot be duplicated, as it would have the person’s fingerprints and iris impressions.
n Gurdwara, Sector 15-C
n SCO 68-69, Sector 17 Bank Square
n SCO 7-10, Sector 22-C
n SCO 293-294, Sector 35-D
n GPO, Sector 17
n Post office, Sector 19
n Post office, Sector 35
n Alankit Assignments, first floor, SCO 196-197, Sec 34-A
n SCO 128-129, Madhya Marg, Sector 8-C
n OBC, Sector 17-B Bank Square
n SCF 21-22, Sector 19-D
n OBC, SCO 44, Sector 21-C
n SCO 48, Madhya Marg, Sector 26
n OBC, Industrial Area, Phase-II
n OBC, SCO 810, near Housing Board
n Community centre, Sec 25
n Gurdwara, Sector 38-B
n 4th floor B-Block, GMCH-32
n Sood Bhavan, Sector 44-A
n Janj Ghar, Sector 45
n # 1456, Sec 61
Link Here :