Date: Sun, 26 May 2002 11:46:23 +0530
From: "pann-AT-vsnl.com" <pann-AT-vsnl.com>
Subject: law punishes victim(deserted wife)&rewards culprit







Veerapandian wrote:

 I have given below a copy of my representation to the Chairman of
National Human Rights Commission,
 India for your kind attention.


Subject:The rule of law in practical terms punishes the victims and
rewards culprits in the case of deserted
wife.
   Date:    Wed, 22 May 2002 15:15:47 +0530
   From:  "pann-AT-vsnl.com" <pann-AT-vsnl.com>
     To:    chairnhrc-AT-nic.in

   From
 Dr.S.A.Veerapandian M.Sc, M.Phil, B.L, Ph.D,
 Reader in Physics, Presidency College,
 Visiting Faculty and Member of Board of Studies,
 Dept. of Indian Music, University of Madras,
 First Seaward Road, Thiruvanmiyur,
 H84/S4,T.N.H.B. Colony, Valmiki Nagar,
 Chennai-600 041.
To
The Chairman,
The National Human Rights Commission,
Sardar Patel Bhavan,
Sansad Marg,
New Delhi-110001


Sir,
       Sub: - The rule of law in practical terms punishes the victims
and rewards
                   culprits in the case of deserted wife -reg.,

       Ref: 1.State Human Rights Commission CASE NO.AG 105 L.NO.196 and
               Complaint submitted to the National Human Rights
Commission.
               2. National Policy for the empowerment of women [2001]

I would like to bring to your kind notice that the rule of law in
practical terms punishes the victims and
rewards culprits in the case of deserted wife since social ground
realities contradicted jurisprudence in the
operation of rule of law.

To elucidate the above point I prefer to present the case cited in the
reference 1. Mrs.Amali, a deserted
wife is living in her matrimonial home [145/W4, Punitha Antoniar Kovil
St, Royappanpatti , Theni Dt,
Tamilnadu  625 526, Ph:04554 53400]
 at Royappanpatti in Theni Dt. of Tamil Nadu while her husband
Mr.M.S.Royarsamy is living in Madurai
[24, Park St, Gnanaolipuram, Madurai-20] with a concubine named
Mrs.Sundaram Ammal.

When Mrs.Amali first initiated a legal struggle to assert her rights as
legally wedded wife, a powerful
weapon employed by her husband to silence her was the assassination of
her character and imputing
unchastity in his written statement to the court [O.S.No 37/1982 Sub
Court, Dindugul], which was
unwarranted in a property dispute.

When he admitted his marriage to his concubine Mrs.Sundaram Ammal in the
same statement, Mrs.Amali
filed a bigamy case [CRL Appeal No.363 of 1979 reported in Criminal Law
weekly]. Immediately her
husband Mr.Royarsamy filed an amendment to his written statement that
because of his lack of knowledge
in English he had wrongly admitted his marriage to Mrs.Sundaram Ammal.

All these unethical misuses of judicial process were made possible
because senior lawyers like
Mr.M.Vaidyalingam  [628,K.K.Nagar,Madurai-20 Tamilnadu] lent his
professional service for money
since rule of law permits such unethical practice.  The same Advocate
Mr. M.Vaidyalingam on behalf of his
client Mr.Royarsamy had published a notice in Tamil Daily ` Dina
Thanti’[Madurai Dt 26 Dec 2001]
imputing unchastity to Mrs.Amali.

If rule of law can be enforced Mr.Royarsamy will be punished under IPC
sections
499, 500, 503 & 506 [ to impute unchastity to a woman] since the
evidences [publication in a daily, written

statements before court, representations to respective authorities for
disconnecting electricity, telephone and

objecting to drinking water connection] for defamation and criminal
intimidation for imputing unchastity are
objective and clear. The immoral character of Mr.Royarsamy is cited in
the 1956 cancellation deed
executed by his father. But the social ground reality of an Indian
village will not permit the operation of law.
If Mrs.Amali files a criminal case she will have to face unpalatable
questions by such lawyers of
Mr.Royarsamy – another torture through misuse of judicial process and
her relatives are advising her
against such a move since the entire village knew about the lustful life
of her husband Royarsamy. Most
probably Mr.Royarsamy will escape punishment thereby proving the failure
of rule of law in protecting the
rights of a deserted wife.

Interestingly the culprit Mr.Royarsamy is trying to misuse the rule of
law to punish his legal wife for daring to

approach courts to assert her legal rights and his only daughter,
grandson, son in law [i.e myself] and other
close relatives including a retired head master for supporting the legal
struggle of Mrs.Amali.  Though he
had resisted all attempts taken by his father and other elders including
a complaint by Mrs.Amali to Theni
All Women’s Police Station for reunion, he had filed a false private
criminal complaint to the Judicial
Magistrate Court at Uthamapalayam [Theni Dt] that Mrs.Amali and others
mentioned above had prevented

his entry to their matrimonial home. On knowing this Prof. Sankaralingam
[Vice President PUCL Madurai]
had represented to the State Human Rights Commission [Chennai] that he
was willing to support and
accompany Mr.Royarsamy if he sincerely wanted to return to the
matrimonial home. Unfortunately the State

Human Rights Commission had decided to close the case after stopping the
misuse of local police in spite of

threat to the basic human rights through misuse of judicial systems by
Mr.Royarsamy. Hence Mrs.Amali
had approached the National Human Rights Commission New Delhi.

An objective study of the judgments [O.S.No.37/1982 of Dindugul Sub
Court, A.S.No.713/1982 of
Chennai High Court,O.S.No. 355/1993 of Periyakulam Sub Court ] will show
the obvious defects in
prayers in the plaints of the deserted wife and the application of
jurisprudence not taking into account the
social ground realities of the difficulties of a village based deserted
wife in producing witness against her
influential husband and real mental conditions of women in coercive
situations.

Since Mr.Royarsamy is a court bird with 50 years experience in several
cases against his father, brother
and other relatives, I fear that he with his money power would exploit
the loopholes in the judicial process
and succeed in punishing his legal wife for daring to approach courts to
get justice.

If this happens it will mean that the rule of law in practical terms
punishes the victims and rewards culprits in
the case of deserted wife since social ground realities contradicted
jurisprudence in the operation of rule of
law.

Mrs.Amali is now 72 years old and is suffering from many physical
diseases like Diabetes, Heart Disease,
Thyroid problem, Back Pain, Hearing Loss and eye pressure. No one can
predict whether she lives long to
get justice for her husband’s exploitation of police and judicial
systems or gets punished through misuse of
rule of law by her husband .


Unless the National Human Rights Commission and other Human Rights
Movements take up this problem
to provide moral support to the legal struggle of Mrs.Amali to
facilitate the rule of law in rendering justice to

a deserted wife,  the case of Mrs.Amali will become a deterrent to any
village based deserted wife who
dares to approach courts for justice.

I, on my part, will continue to support the legal struggle of Mrs.Amali
and face the punishment if
Mr.Royarsamy succeeds in his misuse of rule of law.

Before concluding this representation I would like to draw your
attention to the following declaration cited
in reference 2.
`Policy Prescriptions- Judicial Legal Systems
Legal-judicial system will be made more responsive and gender sensitive
to women’s needs, especially in
cases of domestic violence and personal assault.  New laws will be
enacted and existing laws reviewed to
ensure that justice is quick and the punishment meted out to the
culprits  is commensurate with the severity
of the offence.’
--------- National Policy for the empowerment of women [2001]

Thanking you,
Yours sincerely,
veerapandian

HTML VERSION: