Recent news in Bangalore, Karnataka says: cops asked to exercise caution in dowry cases. Well really, this is nothing new but circular issued in Oct 2010 which maybe Bangalore police is re-discovering now that there has been high-profile murder cases due to fear of false cases, and also request by major IT companies in Bangalore to police to not arrest (everyone in family and the dog) merely on filing of a dowry harassment (IPC 498a) case on husband.
A few photographs are below:
The dharna goes into gear at Town Hall!
We had conducted dharna against Marriage Laws Amendment (2010) Bill on Saturday, 26th May, 2012 in front of Town Hall, Bangalore. Here are some of the coverage and discussion in media due to our dharna:
1. Article dated 27th May 2012 on the 3B, Bangalore edition of Prajavani (Deccan Herald Group) with the tag line “Mahila daurjanya Purushara prathibatane“:
Centre for Men’s Rights (http://menrights.org) aims to promote men’s welfare and their human rights and prevent abuse of men’s rights. We aim to reduce suicide rate of men and create more acceptability and choices for men in society.
We have strongly condemned approval by union cabinet recently to changes in Hindu Marriage Act under “Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill, 2010”.
Further to our news about AIMPF(All India Mothers-in-law Protection Forum) submitting memorandum to Chief Minister of Karnataka in which there were statistics of rising male suicides also, there is update on how the State Confusion for Women (SCW) treats elderly women and mothers. As to why we call SCW as State Confusion for Women, please read just one recent incident we wrote about its national level sisterhood NCW. Another clear proof of their confusion is that SCW chairperson says she cannot do anything on policy matters, only individual cases! Really? Doesn’t NCW give recommendations on law-making and such matters at national level? Wasn’t it NCW which said it will go for review about Supreme Court judgment which said “kicking daughter in law is not cruelty under IPC 498a (not that it actually happened in the case)”. Was that about helping an individual woman or about influencing policy on what constitutes an offence under IPC 498a?