498a-relatives-of-the-husband-should-not-be-made-to-suffer-the-ignominy-of-a-criminal-trial-in-the-absence-of-specific-and-credible-allegations-mp-hc

http://www.livelaw.in/498a-relatives-of-the-husband-should-not-be-made-to-suffer-the-ignominy-of-a-criminal-trial-in-the-absence-of-specific-and-credible-allegations-mp-hc/#.WNDWaipiLYY.gmail

POCSO -The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012.

ഒരു പോക്സോ ദൂരം.

എന്‍റെ മകള്‍.

അവള്‍ ആദ്യമായി പുഞ്ചിരിച്ചത് എന്‍റെ മുഖത്തേക്ക് നോക്കിയാണ്.

ആറുമാസം പ്രായമെത്തുന്നതിനു മുന്‍പേ “ത്ത,ത്ത” എന്ന് പറഞ്ഞ് എന്‍റെ നേര്‍ക്ക് കൈ നീട്ടി ആഞ്ഞിരുന്ന എന്‍റെ പ്രാണന്‍റെ അംശം.

പിഞ്ചു കുഞ്ഞായിരുന്നപ്പോള്‍ ചില രാത്രികളില്‍ എന്തിനോ വാവിട്ടു കരയുന്ന അവള്‍ക്ക് എന്‍റെ നെഞ്ചിലെ ചൂടായിരുന്നു താരാട്ട്.

കട്ടിലില്‍ കിടന്ന്അമ്മയുടെ മുലപ്പാല്‍ നുണയുമ്പോഴും ഒരു കുഞ്ഞിക്കൈ കൊണ്ട് എന്‍റെ മുഖത്തും ഒരു കുഞ്ഞിക്കാല്‍ കൊണ്ട് എന്‍റെ വയറ്റത്തും താളം പിടിച്ചുകൊണ്ടും, ഒടുവില്‍ പാലുകുടി അവസാനിപ്പിച്ച് ചുണ്ടില്‍ തങ്ങി നില്‍ക്കുന്ന അവസാന പാല്‍ത്തുള്ളി “ഭ്രൂം” എന്ന ശബ്ദത്തില്‍ തുപ്പിത്തെറിപ്പിച്ച് എന്നിലേക്ക് തിരിഞ്ഞ് ഉരുണ്ടു വരുന്ന എന്‍റെ കുഞ്ഞിമോള്‍.

എല്ലാ ദിവസവും ഉറങ്ങുന്നതിനു മുമ്പ് എന്‍റെ മോളുടെ കളിപ്പാട്ടവും,പാവയും,കട്ടിലും,തലയിണയും എല്ലാം ഞാനായിരുന്നു.

ഒടുവില്‍ എന്‍റെ വാത്സല്യ ചുംബനം മൂര്‍ധാവില്‍ വാങ്ങി അവള്‍ ഉറങ്ങും.

ഉറക്കത്തിലും ഇരുട്ടില്‍ പലപ്പോഴും കുഞ്ഞിക്കൈ കൊണ്ട് എന്‍റെ മുഖത്ത് തപ്പി നോക്കും, അച്ഛന്‍ തന്നെയല്ലേ അടുത്തുള്ളത് എന്ന്.

വല്ലപ്പോഴും ഞാനില്ലാതെ അമ്മവീട്ടില്‍ പോയി നില്‍ക്കുമ്പോള്‍ പരാതികളുടെ പ്രളയമാണ്; “അച്ഛനില്ലാതെ പെണ്ണ് ഉറങ്ങില്ല, ഓരോ ശീലം പഠിപ്പിക്കും, മനുഷ്യനെ ബുദ്ധിമുട്ടിക്കാന്‍” ഭാര്യയുടെ പരിഭവം ഇപ്പോഴും കാതില്‍ മുഴങ്ങുന്നു.

പത്ത് വര്‍ഷങ്ങള്‍ കടന്നു പോയത് അറിഞ്ഞില്ല.

ഇന്ന് വൈകുന്നേരം മോള്‍ വല്ലാതെ സങ്കടപ്പെട്ടിരിക്കുന്നത് കണ്ട് ഞാന്‍ കാരണം തിരക്കി.

എന്താണ് അച്ഛന്‍റെ പൊന്നിന്‍റെ മുഖത്ത് ഒരു നിഴല്‍?

അവളുടെ കണ്ണുകള്‍ നിറഞ്ഞിരുന്നു.

മടിച്ചു മടിച്ച് അവള്‍ ചോദിച്ചു “ അച്ഛനും അങ്കിള്‍മാരും അപ്പച്ചന്മാരും ആരും എന്നെ തൊടാന്‍ പാടില്ലേ?”

“എന്താ ഇപ്പോള്‍ ഇങ്ങനെ ഒരു സംശയം? ആര് പറഞ്ഞു”? എന്‍റെ മറുചോദ്യം പെട്ടന്നായിരുന്നു.

ഇന്ന് സ്കൂളില്‍ ഒരു ആന്‍റി വന്നു.
ആന്‍റി ഞങ്ങള്‍ക്ക് സ്പെഷ്യല്‍ ക്ലാസ് എടുത്തു. അപ്പോള്‍ പറഞ്ഞു പെണ്‍കുട്ടികള്‍ അച്ഛന്മാരെ പോലും ഉമ്മ വെക്കരുത്, ആണുങ്ങള്‍ ആരും പെണ്‍കുട്ടികളുടെ ദേഹത്ത് തൊടാന്‍ പാടില്ല, വീട്ടിലുള്ളവരായാലും തൊടാന്‍ സമ്മതിക്കരുത്. ആരെങ്കിലും ദേഹത്ത് തൊട്ടാല്‍ സ്കൂളില്‍ ടീച്ചറോടും, ചൈല്‍ഡ് ലൈന്‍ ചേച്ചിമാരോടും ഉടന്‍ പറയണമെന്നും ആ ആന്‍റി പറഞ്ഞു.”

മകളുടെ തല കുനിഞ്ഞു.

ഞാന്‍ അവളുടെ കുഞ്ഞു മുഖം എന്‍റെ കൈക്കുമ്പിളില്‍ ഉയര്‍ത്തി.

ആ കൊച്ചു കണ്ണുകള്‍ നിറഞ്ഞ് തുളുമ്പുന്നുണ്ടായിരുന്നു.

ഞാന്‍ ചിരിച്ചുകൊണ്ട് പറഞ്ഞു. “മോളേ, മോളുടെ ഇഷ്ടമോ അനുവാദമോ ഇല്ലാതെ ആരെങ്കിലും മോളുടെ ദേഹത്ത് തൊടുകയോ ഉപദ്രവിക്കുകയോ ചെയ്‌താല്‍ പറയണം എന്നാണ് ആ ആന്‍റി ഉദ്ദേശിച്ചത്”.

“അല്ല അച്ഛാ, ആരെയെങ്കിലും വീട്ടില്‍ വെച്ച് അച്ഛന്മാര്‍ ഉമ്മ വെക്കുന്നുണ്ടോ എന്നൊക്കെ ചോദിച്ചു. കുറച്ചു കുട്ടികള്‍ ഉണ്ടെന്നു പറഞ്ഞു. അവരോടൊക്കെ എവിടെയാണ് ഉമ്മ വെക്കുന്നത് എന്നൊക്കെ മാറ്റി നിര്‍ത്തി ചോദിച്ചു എന്ന് അവര്‍ പറഞ്ഞു. എനിക്ക് പേടിയായി. ഞാന്‍ മിണ്ടാതെ ഇരുന്നു.”

മകളുടെ എങ്ങലടികള്‍ക്ക് കനം കൂടി വന്നു.

ഞാന്‍ ചിരിച്ചുകൊണ്ട് ചോദിച്ചു. “അതിനു മോളെന്തിനാണ് പേടിക്കുന്നതും കരയുന്നതും”?

അവള്‍ ഏങ്ങലടിച്ചു കൊണ്ട് ചോദിച്ചു; “ എല്ലാ ദിവസവും രാത്രിയില്‍ ഗുഡ് നൈറ്റ് പറഞ്ഞ് അച്ഛന്‍ എന്‍റെ നെറ്റിയില്‍ ഉമ്മ തരാറില്ലേ?..അതൊന്നും ഇനി പറ്റില്ല എന്നാണോ?.. അച്ഛന്‍റെ ഗുഡ് നൈറ്റ് ഉമ്മ കിട്ടാതെ ഞാന്‍ എങ്ങനെ ഉറങ്ങും?... അത് സ്കൂളില്‍ വന്ന ആന്‍റിയൊക്കെ അറിഞ്ഞാല്‍ അച്ഛനെ പോലീസ് പിടിക്കുമോ?...

കുഞ്ഞിന്‍റെ മുഖം ഉയര്‍ത്തിയ എന്‍റെ കൈകള്‍ പൊള്ളുവാന്‍ തുടങ്ങി.

വാത്സല്യ ചുംബനം പതിയേണ്ട അവളുടെ മൂര്‍ധാവില്‍ എന്‍റെ കണ്ണീര്‍ത്തുള്ളികള്‍ പതിച്ചു.

എന്‍റെ മനസിനോടൊപ്പം ചുണ്ടുകളും ചുട്ടുപഴുത്തു.

പിതൃ പുത്രീ ബന്ധത്തില്‍ ഒരു പുതിയ നിയമ അകലം ഞാന്‍ അളന്നു.

ഒരു പോക്സോ ദൂരം....

(ബിജോയ്‌.കെ.ഏലിയാസ്‌)

(കുറിപ്പ്- പദപരിചയം- പോക്സോ / POCSO -The Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012. കുട്ടികള്‍ക്കെതിരായ ലൈംഗിക അതിക്രമങ്ങള്‍ തടയുന്നതിനുള്ള നിയമം ചുരുക്കപ്പേരില്‍ പോക്സോ എന്ന് അറിയപ്പെടുന്നു.)

sex-married-man-knowledge-marriage-not-rape

⭐http://www.livelaw.in/sex-married-man-knowledge-marriage-not-rape-mp-hc/

y of child is maintainable before Magistrate at place where there is family court?

Whether application seeking custody of child is maintainable before Magistrate at place where there is family court?

Section 8 of the Act 1984 makes jurisdiction of the Family
Court under Section 7 sub­Sections (1) and (2) as exclusive.  But, this
exclusivity, as it emerges from the discussion made so far, would relate to
only those jurisdictions which are exercisable by a district Court or any
subordinate   civil   Court   in   respect   of   matters   referred   to   in   the
Explanation or by a criminal Court like the Court of Magistrate of the
First Class in respect of matters under chapter IX of the Cr.P.C. and

nothing more or nothing less.   It is obvious that the exclusivity of the
jurisdiction under Section 8 of the Act, 1984 is extendable to only those
matters specifically referred to in sub­Section (1) and sub­section (2) of
Section 7 of the Act 1984 and not to the jurisdiction of the Magistrate
under Section 21 of the DV Act.   Thus, respectfully disagreeing with the
learned counsel for the petitioner, I find that Sections 7 and 8 of the Act,
1984 could not be interpreted and understood to mean that they confer
sole and exclusive jurisdiction upon the Family Court in respect of all
custody matters and, thus oust the jurisdiction of a Magistrate under
Section 21 of the DV Act.  I would add here, there are certain custody
matters, like the one under Section 21 of the DV Act, which are beyond
the pale of dominance of Sections 7 and 8 of the Act, 1984.
17. No doubt, Section 20 of the Act 1984 accords provisions of
the said Act primacy  over any other law for the time being in force due
to the over­riding effect given to it.  But, this overriding effect is only to
the extent of inconsistency of the provisions contained in any other law
in   force   with   the   provisions   of   the   Act   1984.     We   have   seen   that
jurisdictions of the Family Courts under both parts of Section 7 do not
cover the jurisdiction exercisable by Judicial Magistrate, First Class in
respect of grant of interim custody under Section 21 of the DV Act and,
therefore, there is no question of jurisdiction of the Magistrate under
Section   21   of   the   DV   Act   being   inconsistent   with   the   provisions

conferring jurisdiction upon the Family Court and as such, the Act 1984
will not have any overriding effect upon the DV Act.
18. On the contrary, I must point out, the reliefs available under
Sections 18,19,20,21 and 22 of the DV Act are in the nature of a help,
which is extended to an aggrieved person in addition to the assistance
that the aggrieved person may have under any other law for the time
being in force whether civil or criminal.  This is clear from the provision
of Section 26 of the DV Act which lays down that any reliefs available
under Sections 18,19,20,21 and 22 may also be sought in any legal
proceeding before the civil Court, family Court or a criminal Court.  In
other words, the reliefs available under the DV Act are supplementary in
nature and do not exclude similar reliefs available under other laws.
This is further reaffirmed by the provision of Section 36 of the DV Act
prescribing that the provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not
in derogation of provisions of any other law for the time being in force.
19. The   above   discussion   would   lead   me   to   conclude   that
application filed under Section 21 of the DV Act seeking interim custody
is maintainable before a Magistrate exercising jurisdiction in relation to
an   area   where   Family   Court   is   established   and   the   Magistrate   has
jurisdiction   to   decide   such   an   application   in   accordance   with   law.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION No.750 OF 2016
  Dr. Parijat Vinod Kanetkar,
      
V
   Mrs. Malika Parijat Kanetkar,
      
        CORAM  :   S.B. SHUKRE, J.
        DATE      :   21 st DECEMBER, 2016.
        Citation: 2017(2) MHLJ 218

498a-vague-allegations-not-sufficient-prosecute-relatives-husband

http://www.livelaw.in/498a-vague-allegations-not-sufficient-prosecute-relatives-husband-mp-hc/

Parents can deny family property to negligent children

*Parents can deny family property to negligent children: Supreme Court*

Removing any misgiving about the claim of a share in the joint family property, the Supreme Court has held that the parents have every right to deny the share to the negligent children who simply do not take care of them in old age when they need their help the most, but are virtually left in the lurch.

The apex court gave the ruling in dispute among three brothers over the property of their father Harishankar from Madhya Pradesh inherited by him as his share form joint Hindu family property in two partitions held earlier in 1965 and 1985.

Harishankar’s two sons —Vinod Kumar and Anand Kumar — did not bother to take care of their old parents. The parents lived with their third son Mahesh Kumar, who along with his wife, looked after them. A bench of Justices G. S. Singhvi and S. J. Mukhopadyaya said: “There was nothing unnatural or unusual in the decision of Harishankar to give his share in the joint family property to appellant.”

Pointing out that Mr Vinod Kumar and Mr Anand Kumar even did not spend any money on the funeral and other last rites of their mother when she died in 1992, the Supreme Court said, “Any person of ordinary prudence would have adopted the same course and would not have given anything to the ungrateful children form his or her share in the property.”

“Neither of them bothered to look after the parents in their old age. The attitude of the two left Harishankar and his wife with no choice but to live with Mahesh, who along with his wife and children took care of the old parents and looked after them during their illness,” the top court said while declaring the Will executed by Harishankar in favour of Mahesh as valid in law even in respect of the joint family property.

The judgement is being seen as “innovative” by legal experts, especially in the context of the accepted principle of succession in the joint Hindu family property that makes every member entitled of his or her share as per the family tree. The principle so far established in several judgements of the top court was that the parents can give their self-acquired property to any one but cannot “bequeath” their share in joint family property in a Will contrary the legitimate hereditary share of each person in the family tree.

The judges said that they were not required to go so deep into the evidence about the manner Harishankar signed the Will in favour of Mahesh, which was challenged by Vinod and Anand. Their main focus was rather on the “unmistakably” clear evidence, which showed that the two sons had separated from the family and even had taken certain properties as their share, but after that they simply did not “bothered to take care of the old parents.”

The apex court also criticised the MP High Court for overlooking the vital fact that the parents needed the care by their all the children. The HC had overturned the lower court verdict declaring Harishankar’s Will in favour of Mahesh as valid. “We hold that the HC was clearly in error in reversing the well-reasoned finding recorded by the trial court,” the top court judges in their verdict recorded.

Technologically Advanced Measures In Matrimonial Cases: SC

Use Video Conferencing And Other Technologically Advanced Measures In Matrimonial Cases: SC [Read Judgment]

Read more at: http://www.livelaw.in/use-video-conferencing-technologically-advanced-measures-matrimonial-cases-sc/

Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Bill, 2016 passed

*Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Bill, 2016 passed*

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Parliament has passed the Maternity Benefit (Amendment) Bill, 2016 as Loksabha passed it on Thursday.

Rajyasabha had passed the Bill during the winter session of Parliament.

The Maternity Benefit Act 1961 protects the employment of women during the time of her maternity and entitles her of a ‘maternity benefit’ – i.e. *full paid absence from work – to take care for her child*. *The Act is applicable to all establishments employing 10 or more persons*. The amendments will help 1.8 million (approx.) women workforce in organised sector.

*Salient Features of the Bill*

(i) Maternity leave available to the working women to be increased from 12 weeks to *26 weeks* for the first two children.

(ii) Maternity leave for children beyond the first two will continue to be *12 weeks*.

(iii) Maternity leave of 12 weeks to be available to mothers adopting a child below the age of three months as well as to the “commissioning mothers”. The commissioning mother has been defined as biological mother who uses her egg to create an embryo planted in any other woman.

(iv) Every establishment *with more than 50 employees* to provide for *crèche facilities* for working mothers and such mothers will be permitted to make four visits during working hours to look after and feed the child in the crèche.

(v) The employer may permit a woman to work from home if it is possible to do so.

(vi) Every establishment will be required to make these benefits available to the women *from the time of her appointment*.

maternity-benefit-amendment-bill-2016-passed/

Read Bill, http://www.livelaw.in/maternity-benefit-amendment-bill-2016-passed/ Looking for legal news and events. Download Livelaw app,  India's no:1 Legal news app. http://onelink.to/bxd89a

Maintenance Case laws in favor of husbands

*⭐Maintenance Case laws in favor of husbands:*

1. Reduced interim maintenance. (SC), Hbl J. R. M. Lodha, order on 20-07-2010, Appeal No. 5660 of 2010, Arising SLP (C) No. 6736 of 2007, Neeta Rakesh Jain Vs Rakesh Jeetmal Jain. Citation No. AIR 2010 SC 3540; (2010) 12 SCC 242; 2010 (7) JT I 76 (SC).

2. Wife is not entitled to maintenance who deserted her husband. (Supreme Court), Bench Hbl JJ. S. Ahmed & D. Wadhwa, order on 02-03-200, AIR 2000 SC 952, 2000(2) ALD Cri 15, 2000Cr. LJ 1498, Rohtash Singh Vs Smt. Ramendrei & Ors. Citation No. (2000) 3 SCC 180; JT 2000 (2) SC 553.

3. Maintenance not granted as it is proved that wife wants to reside separately. No maintenance to deserting wife. (HC Chhattisgarh), Hbl J., L. C. Bhadoo, order on 15 -02-2004, Crl. Revision No. 544/2003, Shiv Kumar Yadav Vs Santoshi Yadav.

4. Husband can get PF details of wife. (CIC, Delhi), Decision No. 1816/ IC (A) 2008, F No. CIC/MA/A/2007/00583, Prof M.M. Ansari, order on 10 Jan 2008.

5. Wife guilty of contempt of court, maintenance denied with cost. (HC Delhi), Hbl J. S. N. Dhingra, order on 25-01-2010, Cont. Case (C) 482 of 2008, Gurbinder Singh Vs Manjit Kaur.

6. Children have to maintain their parents. (High Court Gujrat), Hbl J. Akhil Kureshi, order on 09-02-2011, CR RA/759 of 2009, 4/4, Hasmukhbhai Narayan Bhai Viramiya Vs State & Ors.

7. Conditions when maintenance to be paid. (High Court Delhi), Mr. Pradeep Nandrajog J., order reserved on 02-04-2007, order on 14-04-2007, CM (M) No. 367 of 2007, Alok Kumar Jain Vs Purnima Jain. Citation No. 2007 (96) DRJ 115.

8. All states amends in Sec 125 CrPC is invalid. (SC), Bench Hbl M. Katju, Gyan Sudha Mishra JJ., order on 11 Jan 2011, Crl Appeal No. 107 of 2011, SLP (Crl) No. 6568 of 2009, Manoj Yadav Vs Pushpa Yadav. Citation No. 2011 : 1 L.W. (Crl.) 520.

9. Wife should clear that she is unable to maintain her. No maintenance to enable wife who deserted her husband. (High Court Karnataka), Bench Hbl J. M. Patil, order on 13-02-1980, Haunsabai Vs Balkrishna Krishna Badigar. Citation Nos. 1981 Cri LJ 110; ILR 1980 KAR 612; 1980 (2) Kar LJ 158.

5 STEPS TO WIN THE INTERIM MAINTENANCE

10. Maintenance on actual earning. (High Court Delhi), Hbl J. Shiv Narayan Dhingra, order reserved 25-07-2008, order on 18-09-2008, CM (M) No. 1790 of 2006 and CM No. 1435 of 2006, Ritu Raj Kant Vs Anita. Citation No. 154 (2008) DLT 505.

11. Maintenance denied for working wife. (High Court Madras), Hbl A. S. Venkatachalamoorthy J., order on 21-06-2002, Kumaresan Vs Aswathi. Citation No. (2002) 2 MLJ 760.

12. No maintenance for capable and working wife. (High Court Maharastra), Hbl J. C. Chitre J., order on 24-03-2000, Smt. Mamta Jaiswal Vs Rajesh Jaiswal. Citation No. 2000 (4) MPHT 457; II (2000) DMC 170.

13. No maintenance to earning wife, only to children. (High Court Karnataka), Hbl K. Manjunath J., order on 22-08-2005, AIR 2005 Kant 417, ILR 2005 KAR 4981, Dr. E. Shanthi Vs Dr. H K. Vasudev.

14. No Maintenance to working wife in 125 CrPC. (High Court Madras), Hbl P. Sathasivam J., order on 21-01-2003, Manokaran @ Ramamoorthy Vs M. Devaki. Citation Nos. AIR 2003 Mad 212; I (2003) DMC 799; (2003) I MLJ 752 (Mad), CMP No. 16264 of 2002.

15. No Maintenance to wife, but only to child. (HC Mumbai), Hbl J. B. L. Marlapalle, order on 18-7-2009, Appeal No. 20 of 2005 and 144 of 2005, Smt. Manju Kamal Mehra Vs Kamal Puskar Mehra. Citation Nos. 2010 AIR (Bom) 34; 2009 (5) AIIMR 798; Legal/ 360.in 114983; LS/Bom/2009/1374.

16. No maintenance U/s 125 CrPC when wife deserts hubby without cause and also she is earning. No Maintenance to capable wife, but only to child and no maintenance to wife living in adultery. (HC Uttaranchal), Hbl J. Alok Singh, order on 18-11-2009, Crl. Rev. No. 201 of 2006, Smt. Archana Gupta & ors Vs Rajeev Gupta.

17. Wife should clear that she is unable to maintain herself. (HC Allahabad), Hbl J. B. Katju, order on 25-03-1976, Manmohan Singh Vs Smt. Mahindra Kaur. Citation No. 1976 Cri LJ 1664.

18. No Maintenance if wife is working. (HC Uttaranchal), Hbl J. Dharamveer, order on 25-10-2010, Crl Rev. No. 88 of 2002, Vikas Jain Vs Deepali @ Ayushi. Citation No. LAWS (UTN) 2010-1-36.

19. Wife living separate troubled in family no maintenance. (HC Madras), Hbl J. P. R. Shiva Kumar, order on 22-02-2008, Crl. R. C. No. 1491 of 2005, Marimuthu Vs Janaki. Citation No. AIR 2003 Mad 212; I (2003) DMC 799; (2003) I MLJ 752.🇮🇳🇮🇳🏅🏅🏅. Pradeep🏅🏅

5 Legal Rights that Every Woman

5 Legal Rights that Every Woman Should Know About  :

Most women are unaware of their legal rights until they appoint/engage a legal advocate/firm for their problems.  Merely  a handful of  Women  would say “Yes, I know my legal rights.”.

1). Entitlement to  Equal remuneration : Section 4 of the Equal Remuneration Act, 1976 gives right to the women not to be discriminated against the remuneration paid to men. 

2).  Right against sexual harassment  :  As per the Sexual Harassment Act, 2013, it is now mandatory for every organization consisting of  more than 10 employees to form an Internal complaint committee, under Section  4 of the Act. Non compliant shall be punishable with a fine of Rs. 50,000/- and even uphold cancellation of License of the Organization.

3).  Right to be arrested by a female Police officer only and not to be arrested at night under Section 46(1) of Cr.P.C

4).  Right to inherit  property under Hindu Succession Act ; The daughter has also a right in the property of her parents as the sons have, unless there is Will (written)  by the parents.  She has a right a shelter in her parents house, if she is deserted or divorced. 

5).  Right to Anonymity for sexually harassed female  ;  Sexually harassed women  have a right of  confidentiality from press, public or media in any manner.