Petition to Conduct CBI Enquiry into Murder of Dr J A Mathan

Sunday, 29 July 2012

? Drunken mom Urvashi-Manoj K Jayan's daughter Kunjatta refuses to go with drunkard mom Urvashi

? Drunken mom Urvashi-Manoj K Jayan's daughter Kunjatta refuses to go with ? drunkard mom Urvashi
July 9, 2012
Urvashi and Manoj K Jayan's twelve-year-old daughter Kunjatta, (Theja Lakshmi) on Friday submitted in writing before the family court that she did not want to go with her mother Urvashi. The reason cited was that Urvashi was always in a drunken state and she was thus afraid to be with her mom.
Urvashi's fight for custody of her daughter Kunjatta seems to have become a little too ugly. The High Court had ordered Kunjatta has to be produced before the court on all Fridays and Saturdays. On these days, Urvashi could spend time with her from 10 am to 4 pm. On Friday, when Urvashi reached the family court to take her daughter out for shopping at Gold Zook Mall at Ernakualm along with two women, there was high drama.
Drunken Mom Urvashi
Manoj K Jayan accused Urvashi of being under the influence of alcohol. He took this matter to the court through his counsel Sangeetha Lakshmana. When both were summoned to the chamber of the judge, the court was apparently convinced that Urvashi was drunk and the court granted the custody of Theja Lakshmi to Manoj. Urvashi was furious and stormed out of the chamber.
Urvashi with Manoj K Jayan
Urvashi's counsel is extremely unhappy with the court's decision and said that Urvashi is very weak since she is undergoing medical treatment from the past two years. Speaking to press persons outside the courtroom, Urvashi did not seem drunk and was very much under control. She said that she was ready to undergo a medical examination to prove that she was not drunk. She further added, "I reached at 7.30 in the morning at Nedunbaserry airport from Chennai and straight away reached the court to get Kunjatta. After reaching here, I began experiencing severe stomach ache as I had underwent a stomach surgery two months back.''

Sunday, 8 July 2012

Single, Divorced but Pregnant woman kills mom, legitimate son, ends life

Pregnant woman kills mom, son, ends life
July 8, 2012
A 23-year-old pregnant woman allegedly poisoned her three-year-old son and consumed poison along with her mother at their house at Bilikalli near Byadarahalli in Ramanagaram on Friday night. Police identified the victims as Gangamma (23), Kote Lakkamma (47) and H. Ranjan (3). Kote Lakkamma was an attender at East West College. Gangamma is said to have had an illicit affair with a neighbour, identified as Esha, which resulted in her pregnancy. She decided to kill her son and then commit suicide along with her mother fearing disrepute to the family, police said. The deceased has left behind two death notes - one for her lover and another for her family members – wherein she said that no one should be held accountable for their deaths. Gangamma even apologised to Esha and wished him a happy life. She even stated that he was not responsible for the problems.

In 2007, Gangamma was married to Hanumantharaju, who was a factory worker. The couple had a three-year-old son, Ranjan. Hanumantharaju had an affair with a woman when Ranjan was a five-month-old child and eloped with her. His whereabouts are not known since, but his parents gave shelter to Gangamma and her mother Kote Lakkamma in a house at Byadarahalli. Her monthly expenses were paid by her in-laws, Gangadhar, a relative said.

Realtive came to know of Gangamma’s affair with Esha, son of Jayamma, when she became pregnant with his child. Though family members tried to get her to abort the child at various hospitals, doctors refused as she was in her eighth month. The family decided to get her married to Esha and Gangamma had even shifted the house from Byadarahalli to Bilikalli. Gangamma contacted Esha several times on Friday night. After speaking to him, she took the extreme step, police said.

Gangamma laced water with insecticide and gave it to her son. Later, she and her mother also consumed the same and died. Veeranna, a neighbour, grew suspicious when the door was closed for long. When there was no response, the doors were broken open and the trio were shifted to hospital where they were declared brought dead. The bodies were handed over to the family on Saturday afternoon after autopsy at Rajarajeshwari Medical Hospital on Mysore Road. The Byadarahalli police have registered a case and are on the lookout for Esha.

Wednesday, 4 July 2012

INSAAF and allied NGOs demand formation of a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) to probe into the law making process of the upcoming Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2010

INSAAF (Indian Social Awareness and Activism Forum)
USA : 808 Kinwest Pkwy Apt 74, Irving Tx , 75063, USA
India : No 3 , Thindlu Main Road , Vidyaranyapura, Bengaluru - 560097
Coordinators: - Arnab Ganguly : +91-9886641682 ; Virag Dhulia : +91-9008302822
Website: -                      


Sub: INSAAF and allied NGOs demand formation of a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) to probe into the law making process of the upcoming Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2010.

About INSAAF: “Indian Social Awareness and Activism Forum” (INSAAF) is an international think tank specializing in social and gender research. Consisting entirely of intelligentsia possessing vast collective expertise in advancing social reform, legislative consultation and advisory research, this Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) has branches in both the United States and in India. We have acted as trusted advisers on national and international research studies and have provided very credible data and unbiased factual research on various legislative issues both at the state and national level both in US and in India. We have approximately 1400 active contributing research experts all over the world supplying us with their valuable opinion.

About Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill:

1.      The Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill was introduced in the Cabinet in 2010 following recommendation from Law Commission of India and the Honorable Supreme Court of India.
2.      The Law Commission of India had recommended introduction of the ground of Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage for divorce, way back in 1978. By and large, the recommendation lay in cold storage.
3.      The Honorable Supreme Court of India also recommended the same in 2009.
4.      Govt. of India introduced the bill in 2010.
5.      Feminists created a huge hue and cry in the media about divorce being given to a man without any cost.
6.      Bowing to pressure from women’s organizations, the Govt. of India introduced radical property division clauses in the bill, in 2010, which was vehemently opposed by organizations fighting for men. They deposed in front of Parliamentary Standing Committee on Personnel and Law and Justice and opposed clauses specifically targeted at grabbing husband’s property in the event of a divorce happening.
7.      Around March 2012, the bill was approved by the Cabinet and it was very clear from the media reports that the objections raised by men’s rights organizations were completely ignored as the Standing Committee forwarded its recommendations to the Govt.
8.      And towards the end of the budget session in the third week of May, India witnessed a complete mockery of India’s law making process as we shall see it further.

INSAAF’s objections to the Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2010:

  1. Marriages are tumultuous for men. This fact reflects in the suicide statistics that are published year-over-year by the Union Ministry of Home Affairs and it’s the married men who top the list of suicide. Suicide rate of husbands’ increases 4 times the rate of wives’ and 6 times the rate they are bornEvery 9 minutes a married man commits suicide. This fact clearly proves how bad marriages turn out for men and if divorces are also made costlier by way of such laws, this will lead to further increase in suicides by men. Is the Government of India trying to facilitate the suicides of men?
  2. There is one more law in the pipeline – Matrimonial Property (Rights of Women upon Marriage Act), 2012 – which talks about making wife the co-owner of husband’s properties right at the time of marriage; then, why this law? Why is the Government hell bent on making redundant anti-male laws and convert marriage into an extortion industry thriving on men?
  3. In a democratic law making process, objections raised by a particular group or individual cannot be ignored without any proper justification. The panel has failed to give any just and proper reason as to why the objections raised should not be considered.
  4. As per Dowry Prohibition Act, any demand of cash/kind in relation to marriage is “Dowry”. Is not this law legalizing dowry to be paid to wife from husband under the cute name of “Financial Security of Wife”?
  5. Right to Equality is a fundamental right guaranteed by the Constitution of India and cannot be disrespected under any circumstances. Current bill thoroughly violates it, as far as men are concerned.
  6. Feminists are claiming that nearly 80% of women do not have a place to live post-divorce. This is completely false because no such study has ever been conducted. India does not have any standard data collected as to how many divorces are happening, of those how many own a house and how many do not, how many are nuclear, joint and HUF families. Without any such data in place, any claims made are just airy claims without any data. Formulating a law on airy data is dangerous.

However, the main objection by INSAAF has been about the law making process sabotaged as explained below:

1.      Even though the Govt. of India was benevolent enough to include property division clauses into the bill, at the behest of women’s organizations, yet they created hue and cry about the bill not being women-friendly.
2.      They were unhappy that a man would get divorce without any hassles and wanted to make it more and more anti-male.
3.      Even, the Govt. was bowing down to their pressures, what with the Honorable Union Minister of Law and Justice, ready to amend the law after every debate in the House.
4.      No amendments followed the proper process of law making like, getting the recommendations reviewed by the Law Commission, taking citizenry views/comments, referring extreme views to appropriate Standing Committee rather than modifying the draft after every House Session.
5.      Even, after filing multiple applications under the Right to Information Act, to the Ministry of Law and Justice, we were not provided with the copy of the bill and its clauses therein.

Notwithstanding the subversion of democracy in the law making process, INSAAF and other allied NGOs from all over India have written petitions, supported by mass signatures, to the Honorable Minister of Parliamentary Affairs asking for a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) to be formed to probe into the apparently illegal law making process. These petitions have been sent from Bangalore, Pune and Mumbai.

The main demands in the petition seeking for a JPC to be formed to probe into the law making process are as follows:

a)      Further proceedings on the law must stop till the probe is not over and must continue only after the JPC probe gives clean chit to all involved in the law-making process.
b)      Immediate removal of the aggressive women’s groups (from within the Government women’s agencies or private NGO’s) from gender law making process as it hampers the effort of law making and prevents laws from adhering to the principles of natural justice
c)      JPC Investigation into the actions of the Law Ministry in formulating amendments with ferocious intensity during the Parliament session in May 2012 with little national debate or consultation.
d)      JPC Investigation into the reasons why the Law Commission was not consulted before the ultra vires amendments were introduced in quick succession?
e)      JPC Investigation into the allegation that pressure was applied on the Government for formulation of this law and ignoring the principles of natural justice.
f)       JPC Investigation into the reason behind the government hurriedly introducing this law 32 years after it was recommended by the Law commission?  Was there political pressure behind the introduction of this bill?
g)      JPC investigation into all the data provided to support clauses of property transfer.

Copies of these petitions have also been marked to the PMO and the leader of Opposition. We would like to end this press release with a parting note men form more than 50% of the population. Making any law that completely subverts their rights, interests and welfare may lead to cornering of men which can have socially disastrous consequences.