Multiple provision of maintenance for wife

Many innocent men and their family are victims of this gender biased law. It must be abolished.

There should be equal right for Women as well as Men. Why there is a dual standard there should not be benefit of to anyone in the constitution. Law should be equal for all there should not be any description or presumption. I am unable to understand the dual standard that one place it is protecting the one women and the other it is making them feel guilty, As we know almost 80% cases are false why there is no provision that if it will be false than it should punish the woman as well as her whole family. Just add this one the hole extortion industry will be stopped immediately.

I fully support this petition.

Draconian laws

this need to go

Family laws are black laws, court absolutely violate fundamental rights of husband

Women empowerment should lead to constructive society not a draconian one.

Women empowerment should lead to constructive society not a draconian one.

The present legal provisions for protection of women are leading towards disastrous polarization of society in which there is no winner.

The present legal provisions for protection of women are leading towards disastrous polarization of society in which there is no winner.

This total harrasment on men.

This total harrasment on men.

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION The appellant is not present. The Public Authority is represented by Mr. K.G.Thang, DS, Department of Legal Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi. FACTS: 2. Appellant through his RTI application dated 26042013 had sought for information on 3 points Viz i) Is the department of Legal Affairs aware about the issues faced by lakhs of husbands facing maintainence cases under different sectins of the Acts ii) Is your department aware about the loss of precious time of the various courts in deciding the same issue under CIC/SA/A/2014/000011 Page 1 various Acts iii) if the answer to the above questions are yes, then what steps are taken by your Department to address the issue. PIO Vide his reply dated 25052013 stated that the information sought was in the nature of seeking opinions and which was not covered Under Sec 2 (f) of RTI Act. Being unsatisfied with the information provided, appellant preferred First Appeal. FAA order is not available on the file. Claiming nonfurnishing of the information given by the respondent authority, the appellant has approached the Commission in Second Appeal. DECISION 3. The appellant is not present. The respondent officer made his submissions. The respondent officer submitted that they do not maintain such kind of data as sought by the appellant. In fact the question is whether the Department of Legal Affairs is aware of issues faced by the husbands for maintainance, etc., which means that the appellant wanted the Department to talk about the issues faced by the husbands, which is not part of the ‘information’ they possess. The two questions of the appellant are heavily opinionated and cannot be answered by any PIO. Hence the appeal is dismissed

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION The appellant is not present. The Public Authority is represented by Mr. K.G.Thang, DS, Department of Legal Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi. FACTS: 2. Appellant through his RTI application dated 26042013 had sought for information on 3 points Viz i) Is the department of Legal Affairs aware about the issues faced by lakhs of husbands facing maintainence cases under different sectins of the Acts ii) Is your department aware about the loss of precious time of the various courts in deciding the same issue under CIC/SA/A/2014/000011 Page 1 various Acts iii) if the answer to the above questions are yes, then what steps are taken by your Department to address the issue. PIO Vide his reply dated 25052013 stated that the information sought was in the nature of seeking opinions and which was not covered Under Sec 2 (f) of RTI Act. Being unsatisfied with the information provided, appellant preferred First Appeal. FAA order is not available on the file. Claiming nonfurnishing of the information given by the respondent authority, the appellant has approached the Commission in Second Appeal. DECISION 3. The appellant is not present. The respondent officer made his submissions. The respondent officer submitted that they do not maintain such kind of data as sought by the appellant. In fact the question is whether the Department of Legal Affairs is aware of issues faced by the husbands for maintainance, etc., which means that the appellant wanted the Department to talk about the issues faced by the husbands, which is not part of the ‘information’ they possess. The two questions of the appellant are heavily opinionated and cannot be answered by any PIO. Hence the appeal is dismissed

CENTRAL INFORMATION COMMISSION The appellant is not present. The Public Authority is represented by DS, Department of Legal Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi. FACTS: 2. Appellant through his RTI application dated 26042013 had sought for information on 3 points Viz i) Is the department of Legal Affairs aware about the issues faced by lakhs of husbands facing maintainence cases under different sectins of the Acts ii) Is your department aware about the loss of precious time of the various courts in deciding the same issue under CIC/SA/A/2014/000011 Page 1 various Acts iii) if the answer to the above questions are yes, then what steps are taken by your Department to address the issue. PIO Vide his reply dated 25052013 stated that the information sought was in the nature of seeking opinions and which was not covered Under Sec 2 (f) of RTI Act. Being unsatisfied with the information provided, appellant preferred First Appeal. FAA order is not available on the file. Claiming nonfurnishing of the information given by the respondent authority, the appellant has approached the Commission in Second Appeal. DECISION 3. The appellant is not present. The respondent officer made his submissions. The respondent officer submitted that they do not maintain such kind of data as sought by the appellant. In fact the question is whether the Department of Legal Affairs is aware of issues faced by the husbands for maintainance, etc., which means that the appellant wanted the Department to talk about the issues faced by the husbands, which is not part of the ‘information’ they possess. The two questions of the appellant are heavily opinionated and cannot be answered by any PIO. Hence the appeal is dismissed.

First of all thanks for right steps! as this forum raising issues against the misuse of any Acts or Rules by the Inidian wife/exwife. or Ablanari in garb of harassment on the ground of Domestic Voilence.It should be resolve by the Hon'ble Apex Court of this land and be amended this abused Sec/s of IPC498A in th light of other acts & rules accordingly, otherwise this type of disputes will become th tools of one hands hence crimine may crop up.

First of all thanks for right steps! as this forum raising issues against the misuse of any Acts or Rules by the Inidian wife/exwife. or Ablanari in garb of harassment on the ground of Domestic Voilence.It should be resolve by the Hon'ble Apex Court of this land and be amended this abused Sec/s of IPC498A in th light of other acts & rules accordingly, otherwise this type of disputes will become th tools of one hands hence crimine may crop up.

Why whife is allowed to grab money from husband under same prayer for same reason in different courts? why she is alowed to ride on two horses at a time. Stop misuse of law

I am a victim of false case of 498a. Why is the police not taking any action on my wife and my in laws who assaulted my old parents in the police station.Is that not a domestic violence?

i agreed with the prayer . petitioner wife claim petition in DV at Roha court .Allowed and also in resitution at Kalyan amounting to Rs. 3000 in each petition. it is harrassment. husband is jobless.