SC: Now, in every criminal case, Judge should consider about awarding monetary compensation to victim
Sec. 357 casts a duty on Judges to consider this aspect.
The Judgement is of 3/5/13 by SC.
Haresh Raichura
31/8/13
August 31, 2013
People waiting on Deathbed are not entitled to any Priority hearing of their cases in Courts
People waiting on Deathbed are not entitled to any Priority hearing of their cases in Courts.
The words "Law" and "Compassion" are often at war with each other.
When a person is on deathbed and when we give him a spoon of water in his mouth, we are doing and act of compassion.
When a criminal is being hanged, someone asks his last wishes and tries to fulfil it. This is also an act of compassion..
But the fact that a man is dying, is not a ground to take his case out of turn and hear him out in courtrooms.
Such tragedies are mostly seen in Service Law cases and Property Cases.
An employee may have grievance that he is not given his rightful pension dues when he retired.
A person whose land may have been acquired compulsory 40 years ago and he may not have been given his rightful dues. He may be fighting his last battle of his life.
So they fight on till their last breath.
Criteria for granting early hearing to cases are based on "Importance of issues involved to public"
But there is no fix definition of what is important to public.
The examples of service matter and land matters given above are of persons fighting for few rupees.
The amount of their dues of few rupees may be nothing compared to cases were billions of rupees of stakes are involved.
Whatever may be the your views about Equality... the hard truth of life is: We are not equal.
The reasons are many.
The Judges are terribly understaffed.
Their available timeslots for hearing of cases are few.
They have to hear cases as per waiting turn of each case.
But sometimes, some issues are so compelling that they have to be given priority hearing.
So far as the person who is fighting for few rupees and justice is concerned.. and who may be over age 80, or who may be on deathbed.... Well, if he dies, his legal heirs will be joined and they will get dues if any due to the deceased. This is it. This is the Law.
The Compassion is sacrificed because of various other compelling needs of court.
The person on deathbed, really does not leave this world with good impression about our judicial system.
And of course, there are also no fast track courts for persons above age 80.
This hard reality.
There is little we can do for him but ro give him a spoonful of water when he may die.
This is our law as on today.
Haresh Raichura
31/9/13
The words "Law" and "Compassion" are often at war with each other.
When a person is on deathbed and when we give him a spoon of water in his mouth, we are doing and act of compassion.
When a criminal is being hanged, someone asks his last wishes and tries to fulfil it. This is also an act of compassion..
But the fact that a man is dying, is not a ground to take his case out of turn and hear him out in courtrooms.
Such tragedies are mostly seen in Service Law cases and Property Cases.
An employee may have grievance that he is not given his rightful pension dues when he retired.
A person whose land may have been acquired compulsory 40 years ago and he may not have been given his rightful dues. He may be fighting his last battle of his life.
So they fight on till their last breath.
Criteria for granting early hearing to cases are based on "Importance of issues involved to public"
But there is no fix definition of what is important to public.
The examples of service matter and land matters given above are of persons fighting for few rupees.
The amount of their dues of few rupees may be nothing compared to cases were billions of rupees of stakes are involved.
Whatever may be the your views about Equality... the hard truth of life is: We are not equal.
The reasons are many.
The Judges are terribly understaffed.
Their available timeslots for hearing of cases are few.
They have to hear cases as per waiting turn of each case.
But sometimes, some issues are so compelling that they have to be given priority hearing.
So far as the person who is fighting for few rupees and justice is concerned.. and who may be over age 80, or who may be on deathbed.... Well, if he dies, his legal heirs will be joined and they will get dues if any due to the deceased. This is it. This is the Law.
The Compassion is sacrificed because of various other compelling needs of court.
The person on deathbed, really does not leave this world with good impression about our judicial system.
And of course, there are also no fast track courts for persons above age 80.
This hard reality.
There is little we can do for him but ro give him a spoonful of water when he may die.
This is our law as on today.
Haresh Raichura
31/9/13
For some time, I had seen a category of "Senior Citizens". But I am not much sure about it. This article is based on my general impressions which are mostly incorrect.
August 30, 2013
Good, Bad and Worst implication of Hindu Marriage law amendment Bill #IrBM #Hindu
Good, Bad and Worst implication of Hindu Marriage law
amendment #IrBM #Hindu #Marriage #Amendment #Bill
1) Marriages, once which are solemnised as per Hindu Law or Special Marriage Act, will be difficult to be dissolved or to get divorce FREE.
There will be a price to be paid to wife and her family.
So think before you go in for marriage.
2) Some Insurance Company will come up with a plan, where in case of Divorce, Insurance company will pay the divorce decree amount. Good Idea. Insurance Companies should seize opportunity.
3) It will be hell in court, for poor people and lower and upper middle class to seek divorce....Neither marriage will reconcile,... nor they will be able to pay as per court's divorce decree.
4) Even if Marriage will break down irreparably, there will be no divorce without payment.
Husband who are unable pay will languish in wifeless life or they will keep concubines and will seek surrogate mothers to get children. These routes will be cheaper than price which may be fixed by court for divorce. In fact they will never file suits for divorce. They will so behave that wife will be forced to ask for divorce, where they will not have to pay anything.
5) Supreme Court, in two earlier judgement, asked law makers to improve marriage laws.
The law makers have made marriage laws worse and have tightened noose around neck of husband have given other hand of noose in hands of wife.
6) Do you know why people go to court to get divorce?
First they try to reconcile through relatives.
When boy, girl and matrimonial house are not compatible, they try to get divorce by mutual consent.
Here sometimes, demand by wife and her chachu or mamu, is just impossible to meet.
There is no way husband can pay even by borrowing.
Then, lastly, he goes to lawyer and files divorce suit. The point is :- If he is not in position to pay before filing of suit , how will he be able to pay when Judge asks him to pay even more amount at end of suit?
Imagine now the unfolding drama.
It is these people who are going to land in court. They will pay fees to lawyers in instalments.
On every date they will come in court looking like Devdas who is betrayed by Paro.
Every date they will go back home singing sad songs.
The life of husband, wife and children will be spoiled. They will carry trauma for their life.
And what will the Keepers of Law say?
The law makers will say, we left it to judges to pass just orders as per properties of husband and to speedily dispose divorce cases.
Judges will say what can we do when law casts on us a duty to ask for a pound of flesh from husband before giving him divorce!
Supreme Court will say what can we do?
You go to Parliament and change the law! Or tell us why Parliament has no power to pass this law!
We cannot set aside law on ground that it harsh or that it is likely to be abused. These are not grounds for striking down law!
Well, there you are!
Haresh Raichura
30/8/13
amendment #IrBM #Hindu #Marriage #Amendment #Bill
1) Marriages, once which are solemnised as per Hindu Law or Special Marriage Act, will be difficult to be dissolved or to get divorce FREE.
There will be a price to be paid to wife and her family.
So think before you go in for marriage.
2) Some Insurance Company will come up with a plan, where in case of Divorce, Insurance company will pay the divorce decree amount. Good Idea. Insurance Companies should seize opportunity.
3) It will be hell in court, for poor people and lower and upper middle class to seek divorce....Neither marriage will reconcile,... nor they will be able to pay as per court's divorce decree.
4) Even if Marriage will break down irreparably, there will be no divorce without payment.
Husband who are unable pay will languish in wifeless life or they will keep concubines and will seek surrogate mothers to get children. These routes will be cheaper than price which may be fixed by court for divorce. In fact they will never file suits for divorce. They will so behave that wife will be forced to ask for divorce, where they will not have to pay anything.
5) Supreme Court, in two earlier judgement, asked law makers to improve marriage laws.
The law makers have made marriage laws worse and have tightened noose around neck of husband have given other hand of noose in hands of wife.
6) Do you know why people go to court to get divorce?
First they try to reconcile through relatives.
When boy, girl and matrimonial house are not compatible, they try to get divorce by mutual consent.
Here sometimes, demand by wife and her chachu or mamu, is just impossible to meet.
There is no way husband can pay even by borrowing.
Then, lastly, he goes to lawyer and files divorce suit. The point is :- If he is not in position to pay before filing of suit , how will he be able to pay when Judge asks him to pay even more amount at end of suit?
Imagine now the unfolding drama.
It is these people who are going to land in court. They will pay fees to lawyers in instalments.
On every date they will come in court looking like Devdas who is betrayed by Paro.
Every date they will go back home singing sad songs.
The life of husband, wife and children will be spoiled. They will carry trauma for their life.
And what will the Keepers of Law say?
The law makers will say, we left it to judges to pass just orders as per properties of husband and to speedily dispose divorce cases.
Judges will say what can we do when law casts on us a duty to ask for a pound of flesh from husband before giving him divorce!
Supreme Court will say what can we do?
You go to Parliament and change the law! Or tell us why Parliament has no power to pass this law!
We cannot set aside law on ground that it harsh or that it is likely to be abused. These are not grounds for striking down law!
Well, there you are!
Haresh Raichura
30/8/13
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)