Ramanisblog

Category: law

  • SOPA-Senseless.Web page under SOPA and Text of the Bill..

    World wide web
    Image via Wikipedia

    Stop On-line Piracy Act is , to say the least is idiotic ,impractical and seems to have been designed at the behest of Corporations to safeguard their interests.

    SOPA is impractical as it is not possible to differentiate between original content and the pirated one, short of blocking the sites.

    Blocking of sites on the basis of perceived copy right issues is difficult as even Quotes from the original will be closed down.

    Those who really infringe copy right act will continue to go about under the guise of ‘quoting’

    It is all a question of interpretation.

    Being impractical ,it becomes idiotic.

    Do Shakespeare,History Books ,Text Books,Literature,Science papers of general importance,even for that matter News…qualify to be called Copy Righted?

    While the Corporations manoeuvre  to have the bill passed, what is at stake is the individual Freedom of Expression.

    Wiki leaks,Wikipedia,Wired.com,Reddit, Firefox are among others of the internet community to take the fight to the Capitol Hill.

    Time that this non sense is put an end to protect freedom of Expression,fie the greedy corporations,whose perceived losses on account of Online piracy is a pittance compared with the astronomical profits they have.

    Care must be excised to avoid piracy as it amounts to eating what one has spit out.”

    See the Link as to how the web will look like  if the SPOA comes into force.

    I suggest, instead of  closing sites to show our disapproval,we write more, say 5 pieces per Blogger on SOPA, to register out protest, signifying that Word can not be suppressed.

    “http://thehackernews.com/2012/01/indian-bjp-politicians-bank-accounts.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+TheHackersNews+%28The+Hackers+News+-+Daily+Cyber+News+Updates%29

    When the powerful world of old media mobilized to win passage of an online antipiracy bill, it marshaled the reliable giants of K Street — the United States Chamber of Commerce, the Recording Industry Association of America and, of course, the motion picture lobby, with its new chairman, former SenatorChristopher J. Dodd, the Connecticut Democrat and an insider’s insider.

    Yet on Wednesday this formidable old guard was forced to make way for the new as Web powerhouses backed by Internet activists rallied opposition to the legislation through Internet blackouts and cascading criticism, sending an unmistakable message to lawmakers grappling with new media issues: Don’t mess with the Internet.

    As a result, the legislative battle over two once-obscure bills to combat the piracy of American movies, music, books and writing on the World Wide Web may prove to be a turning point for the way business is done in Washington. It represented a moment when the new economy rose up against the old.

    “I think it is an important moment in the Capitol,” said Representative Zoe Lofgren, Democrat of California and an important opponent of the legislation. “Too often, legislation is about competing business interests. This is way beyond that. This is individual citizens rising up.”

    It appeared by Wednesday evening that Congress would follow Bank of America, Netflix and Verizon as the latest institution to change course in the face of a netizen revolt.

    Legislation that just weeks ago had overwhelming bipartisan support and had provoked little scrutiny generated a grass-roots coalition on the left and the right. Wikipedia made its English-language content unavailable, replaced with a warning: “Right now, the U.S. Congress is considering legislation that could fatally damage the free and open Internet.” Visitors to Reddit found the site offline in protest. Google’s home page was scarred by a black swatch that covered the search engine’s label.

    http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/19/technology/web-protests-piracy-bill-and-2-key-senators-change-course.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha2

    SOPA Text.

    ”

    H.R.3261

    Stop Online Piracy Act (Introduced in House – IH)

    SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

      (a) Short Title- This Act may be cited as the `Stop Online Piracy Act’.
      (b) Table of Contents- The table of contents of this Act is as follows:
      Sec. 1. Short title; table of contents.
      Sec. 2. Savings and severability clauses.

    TITLE I–COMBATING ONLINE PIRACY

      Sec. 101. Definitions.
      Sec. 102. Action by Attorney General to protect U.S. customers and prevent U.S. support of foreign infringing sites.
      Sec. 103. Market-based system to protect U.S. customers and prevent U.S. funding of sites dedicated to theft of U.S. property.
      Sec. 104. Immunity for taking voluntary action against sites dedicated to theft of U.S. property.
      Sec. 105. Immunity for taking voluntary action against sites that endanger public health.
      Sec. 106. Guidelines and study.
      Sec. 107. Denying U.S. capital to notorious foreign infringers.

    TITLE II–ADDITIONAL ENHANCEMENTS TO COMBAT INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY THEFT

      Sec. 201. Streaming of copyrighted works in violation of criminal law.
      Sec. 202. Trafficking in inherently dangerous goods or services.
      Sec. 203. Protecting U.S. businesses from foreign and economic espionage.
      Sec. 204. Amendments to sentencing guidelines.
      Sec. 205. Defending intellectual property rights abroad.

    SEC. 2. SAVINGS AND SEVERABILITY CLAUSES.

      (a) Savings Clauses-
      (1) FIRST AMENDMENT- Nothing in this Act shall be construed to impose a prior restraint on free speech or the press protected under the 1st Amendment to the Constitution.
      (2) TITLE 17 LIABILITY- Nothing in title I shall be construed to enlarge or diminish liability, including vicarious or contributory liability, for any cause of action available under title 17, United States Code, including any limitations on liability under such title.
      (b) Severability- If any provision of this Act, or the application of the provision to any person or circumstance, is held to be unconstitutional, the other provisions or the application of the provision to other persons or circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

    TITLE I–COMBATING ONLINE PIRACY

    SEC. 101. DEFINITIONS.

      In this title:
      (1) DOMAIN NAME- The term `domain name’ has the meaning given that term in section 45 of the Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. 1127) and includes any subdomain designation using such domain name as part of an electronic address on the Internet to identify a unique online location.
      (2) DOMAIN NAME SYSTEM SERVER- The term `domain name system server’ means a server or other mechanism used to provide the Internet protocol address associated with a domain name.
      (3) DOMESTIC DOMAIN NAME- The term `domestic domain name’ means a domain name that is registered or assigned by a domain name registrar, domain name registry, or other domain name registration authority, that is located within a judicial district of the United States.
      (4) DOMESTIC INTERNET PROTOCOL ADDRESS- The term `domestic Internet Protocol address’ means an Internet Protocol address for which the corresponding Internet Protocol allocation entity is located within a judicial district of the United States.
      (5) DOMESTIC INTERNET SITE- The term `domestic Internet site’ means an Internet site for which the corresponding domain name or, if there is no domain name, the corresponding Internet Protocol address, is a domestic domain name or domestic Internet Protocol address.
      (6) FOREIGN DOMAIN NAME- The term `foreign domain name’ means a domain name that is not a domestic domain name.
      (7) FOREIGN INTERNET PROTOCOL ADDRESS- The term `foreign Internet Protocol address’ means an Internet Protocol address that is not a domestic Internet protocol address.
      (8) FOREIGN INTERNET SITE- The term `foreign Internet site’ means an Internet site that is not a domestic Internet site.
      (9) INCLUDING- The term `including’ means including, but not limited to.
      (10) INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ENFORCEMENT COORDINATOR- The term `Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator’ means the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator appointed under section 301 of the Prioritizing Resources and Organization for Intellectual Property Act of 2008 (15 U.S.C. 8111).
      (11) INTERNET- The term `Internet’ has the meaning given that term in section 5362(5) of title 31, United States Code.
      (12) INTERNET ADVERTISING SERVICE- The term `Internet advertising service’ means a service that for compensation sells, purchases, brokers, serves, inserts, verifies, clears, or otherwise facilitates the placement of an advertisement, including a paid or sponsored search result, link, or placement, that is rendered in viewable form for any period of time on an Internet site.
      (13) INTERNET PROTOCOL- The term `Internet Protocol’ means a protocol used for communicating data across a packet-switched internetwork using the Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol, and includes any predecessor or successor protocol to such protocol.
      (14) INTERNET PROTOCOL ADDRESS- The term `Internet Protocol address’ means a numerical label that is assigned to each device that participates in a computer network that uses the Internet Protocol for communication.
      (15) INTERNET PROTOCOL ALLOCATION ENTITY- The term `Internet Protocol allocation entity’ means, with respect to a particular Internet Protocol address, the entity, local internet registry, or regional internet registry to which the smallest applicable block of Internet Protocol addresses containing that address is allocated or assigned by a local internet registry, regional internet registry, or other Internet Protocol address allocation authority, according to the applicable publicly available database of allocations and assignments, if any.
      (16) INTERNET SEARCH ENGINE- The term `Internet search engine’ means a service made available via the Internet that searches, crawls, categorizes, or indexes information or Web sites available elsewhere on the Internet and on the basis of a user query or selection that consists of terms, concepts, categories, questions, or other data returns to the user a means, such as a hyperlinked list of Uniform Resource Locators, of locating, viewing, or downloading such information or data available on the Internet relating to such query or selection.
      (17) INTERNET SITE- The term `Internet site’ means the collection of digital assets, including links, indexes, or pointers to digital assets, accessible through the Internet that are addressed relative to a common domain name or, if there is no domain name, a common Internet Protocol address.
      (18) LANHAM ACT- The term `Lanham Act’ means the Act entitled `An Act to provide for the registration and protection of trademarks used in commerce, to carry out the provisions of certain international conventions, and for other purposes’, approved July 5, 1946 (commonly referred to as the `Trademark Act of 1946′ or the `Lanham Act’).
      (19) NONAUTHORITATIVE DOMAIN NAME SERVER- The term `nonauthoritative domain name server’ means a server that does not contain complete copies of domains but uses a cache file that is comprised of previous domain name server lookups, for which the server has received an authoritative response in the past.
      (20) OWNER; OPERATOR- The terms `owner’ or `operator’, when used in connection with an Internet site, includes, respectively, any owner of a majority interest in, or any person with authority to operate, such Internet site.
      (21) PAYMENT NETWORK PROVIDER-
      (A) IN GENERAL- The term `payment network provider’ means an entity that directly or indirectly provides the proprietary services, infrastructure, and software to effect or facilitate a debit, credit, or other payment transaction.
      (B) RULE OF CONSTRUCTION- For purposes of this paragraph, a depository institution (as such term is defined under section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act) or credit union that initiates a payment transaction shall not be construed to be a payment network provider based solely on the offering or provision of such service.
      (22) SERVICE PROVIDER- The term `service provider’ means a service provider as defined in section 512(k)(1) of title 17, United States Code, that operates a nonauthoritative domain name system server.
      (23) U.S.-DIRECTED SITE- The term `U.S.-directed site’ means an Internet site or portion thereof that is used to conduct business directed to residents of the United States, or that otherwise demonstrates the existence of minimum contacts sufficient for the exercise of personal jurisdiction over the owner or operator of the Internet site consistent with the Constitution of the United States, based on relevant evidence that may include whether–
      (A) the Internet site is used to provide goods or services to users located in the United States;
      (B) there is evidence that the Internet site or portion thereof is intended to offer or provide–
      (i) such goods and services,
      (ii) access to such goods and services, or
      (iii) delivery of such goods and services,
      to users located in the United States;
      (C) the Internet site or portion thereof does not contain reasonable measures to prevent such goods and services from being obtained in or delivered to the United States; and
      (D) any prices for goods and services are indicated or billed in the currency of the United States.
      (24) UNITED STATES- The term `United States’ includes any commonwealth, possession, or territory of the United States

    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c112:1:./temp/~c112s5p8Nc:e1014:

    Related articles

  • Mullaiperiyar Dam-SC orders- Funny to say the least.

    On the issue of Mullaiperiyar Water Storage issue with Kerala wanting to reduce water level and Tamil Nadu opposing it and the passions in the two States running very high to the extent of people of each State resorting to violence, the present order by the Supreme Court asking Tamil Nadu not to quote its Court’s oral observations in Advertisements and Kerala not to incite passions, is stupid,to say the least.

    ‘The bench also castigated Tamil Nadu for misusing the apex court‘s earlier orders and oral observations through huge newspaper advertisements and also declined to entertain its plea for restraining Kerala leaders from making any statements on the dam row.

    “How can we stop them with a gag order. Kindly see your prayer. How do we issue such a gag order. If somebody wants to protest he can.

    “You are issuing press advertisements. Even our oral observations are being mentioned in the advertisements. It is very unfortunate. You must have had some senior counsel’s assistance while issuing the advertisements,” the bench remarked.

    “Court proceedings should not be used for settling political scores. This is a sacred institution, the sanctity must be maintained.

    “The chief executive of the state government makes use of the observation of the court proceedings. It may not be proper when the matter is subjudice,” the bench told senior counsel Raju Ramachandran, appearing for Tamil Nadu.

    “Though there is nothing substantive involved in the controversy both sides are inciting.

    “Ultimately the safety of the people is paramount. We cannot compromise on the safety of people. Even one life is important. Why for that matter even the life of an animal or even the forest is important,” the bench observed while asking Tamil Nadu to ensure that the water level did not breach the 136 feet fixed by it in its earlier order.

    The apex court said Kerala’s fears of the dam’s collapse from possible quakes cannot be brushed aside lightly.

    “It (water level) has exceeded 136 feet. It cannot be without basis. You have to ensure it does not exceed. You are bound by it. You cannot permit it to go beyond 136 feet.

    Between 26 November and December 5 it has gone up,” the bench remarked.

    http://expressbuzz.com/states/tamilnadu/sc-slams-tamil-nadu-kerala-for-fuelling-dam-row/343094.html

    If oral submissions are not to be made Public, why should the Court make them?

    Are the statements made  off the cuff remark,s not to be taken seriously?

    The Court has also advised Tamil Nadu not to breach the water level and rejected Kerala’s prayer to reduce the water level.

    How is this possible?

    Only one instruction can be complied with.

    Precisely  this is what the issue is all about.

    Why make inane observations without offering a solution?

    Knowing the seriousness of the issue, the Court should have advised the Central Government to deploy CISF instead of sending a notice to it. 

    In fact the Court should have taken the issue suo moto.

    Kerala should not object to present water level;Tamil Nadu should not stick to its stand of the present agreed level of storage.

    If the State can not ask the other one not to incite passions, is it a gag order?

    If the Court asks the State the same, it is not a Gag Order!

    No orders for deployment of CISF.

    The issue is not ‘ substantive’!

    What sort of Order is this?

    Related articles

  • Lawsuit filed against’ The Secret Government of The World’ in US-Illuminati?

    Seal of the United States District Court for t...
    Image via Wikipedia

    Interesting news.An objective study of the History,especially of the 19th and Twentieth Century makes one suspicious of certain World Events like the Assassination of Kennedy,Disintegration of USSR,Mysterious deals among the governments .

    Illuminati or some other  Group is definitely behind some of these as also corrupt monetary deals by people in power,

    How does one explain the fact that nearly all opinion makers including Presidents of US,Scientists like Newton belong to Illuminati or some esoteric Group?

    Why esoteric symbols relating to free Masonry are used in US Bills?

     

    A lawsuit was filed today (November 23rd US time) that could end the secret government that has ruled Western civilization for at least the past 300 years. The lawsuit claims that close to $1 trillion was stolen by, among others, UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon and the UN, former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi and the Italian government, Giancarlo Bruno and the Davos World Economic forum and others believed to include many of the owners of the US Federal Reserve Board. The lawsuit was filed in New York by Neil Keenan, acting as representative of the Dragon family, a reclusive group of wealthy Asian families. This filing is the result of extensive evidence gathering by international police and law-enforcement agencies including Interpol, the CIA, the Japanese Security Police, Eastern European secret services and has the backing of the Pentagon as well as the armed forces of Russia and China.

    The ultimate defendants in this legal action are believed to be the same cabal behind the assassination of US President John F. Kennedy and many other major international crimes.

    This particular lawsuit was triggered by the illegal detainment of two Japanese citizens,  Akihiko Yamaguchi and Mitsuyoshi Watanabe, as well as the seizure of $134.5 billion in bonds they were holding in Italy on June 3, 2009. After the bonds were stolen, self-described 33rd degree Freemason Leo Zagami contacted this writer and said the Montecarlo P2 masonic lodge could cash the bonds with the help of Vatican banker Daniel Dal Bosco. This writer forwarded the information, via a member of the UK Royal family, to the dragon family who entrusted a further $1 trillion worth of similar bonds to the plaintiff Neil Keenan. Keenan then, after much negotiation, entrusted the bonds to Dal Bosco.

    Dal Bosco subsequently absconded with the bonds and was followed 24-hours a day by various intelligence service agents to see what he would do with them. The Dal Bosco trail led to the Davos World forum, the UN, the Italian government and the Vatican, among other places. Following this, Keenan was approached by a who’s who of powerful figures including top Vatican officials, Wall Street bankers, European nobles and former US presidents, most offering him astronomical bribes to go away. He was also poisoned with ricin and nearly killed.

    According to Keenan “The roots of this case go back to between 1927 and 1938, when, under arrangements made between T.V. Soong (Finance Minister of China) and Henry Morgethau, Secretary of the Treasury, The United States Government purchased some 50 million ounces of silver and leased vast amounts of gold from the Nationalist Chinese Government, known as Kuomintang. For all the treasure handed in, certificates were given to those who surrendered their precious metals.”

    Many of the bonds seized by Dal Bosco are backed with the Chinese gold taken by the Federal Reserve Board during those years and never returned to its legal owners.

    Other bonds seized were Kennedy bonds. These bonds were backed by gold held in trust for the people of the planet and were supposed to be used to finance the economic development of the world. Instead they have mostly been stolen and misused by members of the cabal that has seized control of the Western financial system on behalf of private interests.

    The original signatory to the Kennedy bonds was former Indonesian President Soekarno. Soekarno’s heir Dr. Seno Edy Soekanto has given Keenan power of attorney to return their rightful owners the Kennedy bonds and other property allocated to the people of the world via something known as the global collateral accounts.

    The lawsuit is only the first salvo in a legal battle to restore control of the global financial system to the people and governments of the world as well as the rightful owners of historical assets that have been seized by members of the banking cartel.

    The lawsuit has been filed as Civil Action #8500 at the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York on November 23, 2011.

    ********

    Background information on the problems with the global financial system

    By Neil Keenan and Keith Scot.

    The entire cause of the problem.

    The United States is a private corporation owned by the British Crown (Rothchilds), the Bank of England (Rothchilds) and the Vatican (Rothchilds again). It was previously called the Virginia Company until 3/9/33 when it was dissolved by Roosevelt under the Emergency Banking Act. On 5/5/33 Congress elected to dissolve the Gold Standard and Sovereign Authority of the U.S. and all of its official capacities including government offices, departments and officers. The U.S. is a corporation, not a nation. The Federal Reserve is neither Federal, nor a Reserve. It is a private counterfeiting organization run by Jewish bankers who lend the money they print out of thin air at interest while we keep on paying these criminals to fleece the People.

    That technology of theft and deception that has been exported from the United States through their promotion of this fraud as the paradigm of global finance is an obscenity that has set the seeds of its own destruction.

    This has been compounded by the refusal of ordinary people to realize, know and understand that it is the duplicity of Governments and the deceit and endless greed of bankers that combined to simply fleece them like the apathetic sheep they are. Apathy and ignorance of the truth, creates belief in the lie. The truth is self-evident, but most people choose to neither hear it nor understand it. The debts of the Federal Reserve are the debts of a private corporation that is robbing the people of the United States.

    The United States Dollar is a Federal Reserve Note and the obligations against the currency are the obligations of the Federal Reserve, not the people of the United States.

    http://www.fourwinds10.net/siterun_data/government/judicial_and_courts/news.php?q=1322151001

    Related articles

  • Break into Smaller Deities-US Judge orders God!

    Hinduism obeys the Hon.Judge’s order-available in both the formats.

    JANUARY 30, 2002 | ISSUE 38•03

    WASHINGTON, DC—Calling the theological giant’s stranglehold on the religion industry “blatantly anti-competitive,” a U.S. district judge ruled Monday that God is in violation of anti-monopoly laws and ordered Him to be broken up into several less powerful deities.

    “The evidence introduced in this trial has convinced me that the deity known as God has willfully and actively thwarted competition from other deities and demigods, promoting His worship with such unfair scare tactics as threatening non-believers with eternal damnation,” wrote District Judge Charles Elliot Schofield in his decision. “In the process, He has carved out for Himself an illegal monotheopoly.”

    The suit, brought against God by the Justice Department on behalf of a coalition of “lesser deities” and polytheistic mortals, alleged that He violated antitrust laws by claiming in the Holy Bible that He was the sole creator of the universe, and by strictly prohibiting the worship of what He termed “false idols.”

    “God clearly commands that there shall be no other gods before Him, and He frequently employs the phrase ‘I AM the Lord’ to intimidate potential deserters,” prosecuting attorney Geoffrey Albert said. “God uses other questionable strongarm tactics to secure and maintain humanity’s devotion, demanding, among other things, that people sanctify their firstborn to Him and obtain circumcisions as a show of faith. There have also been documented examples of Him smiting those caught worshipping graven images.”

    Attorneys for God did not deny such charges. They did, however, note that God offers followers “unbeatable incentives” in return for their loyalty, including eternal salvation, protection from harm, and “fruitfulness.”

    “God was the first to approach the Jewish people with a ‘covenant’ contract that guaranteed they would be the most favored in His eyes, and He handed down standards of morality, cleanliness, and personal conduct that exceeded anything else practiced at the time,” lead defense attorney Patrick Childers said. “He readily admits to being a ‘jealous’ God, not because He is threatened by the prospect of competition from other gods, but because He is utterly convinced of the righteousness of His cause and that He is the best choice for mortals. Many of these so-called gods could care less if somebody bears false witness or covets thy neighbor’s wife. Our client, on the other hand, is truly a ‘People’s God.’”

    In the end, however, God was unable to convince Schofield that He did not deliberately create a marketplace hostile to rival deities. God’s attorneys attempted to convince the judge of His openness to rivals, pointing to His longtime participation in the “Holy Trinity,” but the effort failed when Schofield determined that Jesus Christ and the Holy Ghost are “more God subsidiaries than competitors.”

  • Adultery and denial of Alimony-Supreme Court.Why discriminate men?

    Supreme Court of India - Central Wing
    Image via Wikipedia

    The Supreme Court of India has recently passed a judgement that Adultery is no ground for denial of Alimony.

    Common sense says that Adultery is  at the minimal level is breach of trust.

    If breach of trust is a cognizable offense(Raja and Kanimozhi of 2 G fame/notoriety have been booked under this as an after thought this involves tough prison sentence),it beats me as to how breach of trust in a marriage is not a cognizable offense.

    Indian law discriminates men against women in this aspect.

    ”

    In India the offence of adultery is punishable under Section 497 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), 1860. As it stands, this Section makes only men having sexual intercourse with the wives of other men without the consent of their husbands punishable and women cannot be punished even as abettors. The Report of the Malimath Committee on Criminal Justice Reforms and the 42nd Report of the Law Commission of India recommended redefining Section 497 to make women also punishable for adultery. The Central Government accordingly has sought the views of all the 30 states in the country regarding the implementation of the said recommendations. This paper attempts to establish the redundancy of Section 497 in the light of Personal and Matrimonial laws and changing social conditions subsequently making a case against amending and for completely deleting Section 497 from the IPC.

    An Analysis of Section 497
    Section 497 penalizes sexual intercourse of a man with a married woman without the consent of her husband when such sexual intercourse does not amount to rape. That is, it draws a distinction between consent given by a married woman without her husband’s consent and a consent given by an unmarried woman. It does not penalize the sexual intercourse of a married man with an unmarried woman or a widow or even a married woman when her husband consents to it. In case the offence of adultery is committed, the husband cannot prosecute his unfaithful wife but can only prosecute her adulterer. However, since the offence of adultery can be committed by a man with a married woman only, the wife of the man having sexual intercourse with other unmarried women cannot prosecute either her husband or his adulteress. What is interesting here is that the section itself expressly states that the unfaithful wife cannot be punished even as an abettor to the crime. The offence of adultery therefore is an offence committed against the husband of the wife and not against the wife.

    The Constitutionality of Section 497 was challenged before the Supreme Court under Article 14 on the grounds that it makes an arbitrary discrimination based on sex in the cases of Yusuf Aziz , Sowmithri Vishnu and V. Revathi .

    In the case of Yusuf Aziz the Court ruled that the immunity granted to women from being prosecuted under section 497 was not discriminatory but valid under Article 15 (3) of the Constitution.

    In the cases of Sowmithri and V.Revathi it was held that it is the policy of the law to not to punish women for adultery and policies could not be questioned. Secondly, that it was not contemplated for a husband and a wife to strike each other with weapon of criminal law. And that adultery therefore was an offence against the matrimonial home and not either against the wife or the husband.

    It must be mentioned here that all of the above decisions of the Supreme Court had restricted their scope to the determination of Constitutional validity of Section 497 as it stands. They should not be taken as an authority over the question whether Section 497 is required at all.

    Adultery cannot be committed without a woman’s consent. Yet, the section burdens man alone for the offence. Though the reasons for this may be justifiable, the woman here is always treated as a victim of the offence. Hence, this section does not contemplate a situation where the same married woman has sexual intercourse with more than one person other than her husband without her husband’s consent. It is highly implausible that even in such a situation the woman would always be the victim and not the person who provokes the offender for the crime. No doubt that the law, as it stands, is inadequate.

    Why Women Are Not Punished for Adultery
    The offence of Adultery did not punish women but still existed in the code because at the time the enforced law was enacted polygamy was deep rooted in the society and women shared the attention of their husbands with several other wives and extramarital relations. Women were treated as victims of the offence of adultery as they were often starved of love and affection from their husbands and could easily give in to any person who offered it or even offered to offer it. The provision was therefore made to restrict men from having sexual relations with the wives of other men and at the same time to restrict their extra marital relations to unmarried women alone.

    Why the Supreme Court Has Erred
    Considering the limited question of Constitutional validity before it the object of Section 497, as stated above, was never brought before the Supreme Court. The decisions of the Court therefore have erred to the limited extent of holding adultery as an offence against the matrimonial home.

    If adultery had been a matrimonial offence neither the husband would have had the freedom to indulge in extra-marital sexual relations with unmarried women nor the consent of the husband of the wife when she had sexual intercourse with other men would make any difference in its constitution. Adultery therefore is not an offence against the matrimonial home but against the husband himself. The way a person is not expected to enter on the property of the other without his consent, another man is not expected to have sexual intercourse with someone’s wife without his consent. It uses the same analogy that is used for the offence of trespass. There is no doubt then that this section treats a woman like a man’s chattel.

    Changing Social Conditions 
    Polygamy in all religions except Muslims, who are legally allowed to have four wives, has ceased to exist and become illegal. Men now have only one wife who has no rivals for her husband’s love and affection. Today, not only a person having two wives can be prosecuted for bigamy but his second marriage is void ab-initio. Unlike the past when it was required to prove that the husband “lived in adultery” to obtain a divorce, even a single instance of sexual intercourse with anyone other than the spouse entitles the other spouse for divorce.”

    http://www.legalserviceindia.com/article/l291-Adultery.html

    There you have it.

    Hope organisations like http://www.saveindianfamily.org/ , http://aimwa.in/,which fights for the cause of harassed husbands who suffer at the hands of wife and in laws take this issue and fight the issue out.

    Social awareness is to be created for injustices meted out to men.

    Another interesting part of the judgement confirmed  the alimony.

    It is sheer  inhuman-the wife was divorced  for adultery and she is being rewarded!

    Any one who wants  to make a quick buck may marry a person who earns Rs.One lakh/m ,commit adultery,get a divorce get a regular income for life.

    If adventurous,repeat the process by getting married again.

    Do people leave common sense at home?

    NEW DELHI, 20 NOV: A husband cannot deny maintenance to his divorced wife on the ground that she was involved in an adulterous relationship, a Delhi court has said.
    The verdict was passed by additional sessions judge Mr TR Naval, who said: “The findings that the divorcee wife has been living in adultery will not provide any benefit to him (husband)”.
    The court rejected the plea of a Delhi-based policeman, who had challenged a magistrate’s order directing him to pay Rs 4,000 as monthly alimony to his wife on the ground that she was having an adulterous relationship.
    The divorcee wife had moved the sessions court seeking enhancement of the alimony to Rs 15,000 per month saying her ex-husband was earning over Rs 50,000 per month and had no other liability.
    The ASJ, however, disposed of the petitions saying the order passed by the magistrate was “fair” and “proper”.
    “I am of the view that there is no infirmity, illegality or inaccuracy in the impugned order and there is no merit in the revisions (petition),” the court said.
    The ASJ also observed that the magistrate, while deciding the alimony, had also kept in mind that the man had re-married and had the responsibility of his second wife and children.
    The woman had filed a petition before a magistrate seeking alimony alleging that she had got married in February 2004 and although her parents had given dowry at that time, her husband and in-laws used to taunt her for not bringing a car.
    She had alleged that as her husband was serving in police, he used to threaten her and her family members. She had also claimed that she was brutally beaten up by him and her mother-in-law.

    http://www.thestatesman.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=390634&catid=36

    Related articles