BJP a militant organisation, doling out money to win polls: Mamata
Kolkata, June 21: West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata Banerjee on Thursday dubbed the BJP a "militant organiation" and accused it of doling out cash to win elections, saying such practices by it will soon be the reason for its downfall.
Addressing the extended core committee meeting of her Trinamool Congress, Banerjee alleged that the Bharatiya Janata Party was engaged in diving the people on religious lines.
"We are not a militant organisation like the BJP. They are arrogant and intolerant. They are religiously biased. They don't like Muslims, Christians, Sikhs - they are even differentiating between the upper caste and the lower caste Hindus," she said.
Taking a veiled swipe at West Bengal Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) chief Dilip Ghosh for vowing to retaliate with bullets and carry out "encounters" if BJP workers are troubled, Banerjee dared the BJP to attack her party men.
"Some BJP leaders are threatening to carry out encounters. Some are talking about using guns and hurling bombs. They are even talking about finishing us off. I dare them to show their might. We have seen their capabilities during the Panchayat elections," she thundered.
"Nothing can be achieved in politics at the point of a gun. You (BJP leaders) are talking about bombs and bullets because you are in power in Delhi now. Where will you go once you lose the power? People are getting ready to throw you off."
Ghosh on Tuesday said the BJP was counting the bullets used on their party workers by the Trinamool Congress and vowed to pay them back in the same coin if the attacks did not stop.
"We are counting the bullets which killed our workers. The TMC leaders will either go to jail or there will be direct encounters. Violence will be countered with violence and bullets will be answered by bullets.
"We have not signed a bond where it is written that we will offer them sweets even if they beat us," Ghosh told a public meeting in Jalpaiguri.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Forcing wife to quit job constitutes cruelty: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Bhopal: The Madhya Pradesh High Court has ruled that forcing a wife to leave her job to conform to her husband’s preferences and lifestyle constitutes cruelty, thereby providing grounds for divorce.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Sushrur Dharmadhikari clarified that neither spouse has the right to dictate the other’s employment decisions based on personal choices. The Bench noted that the decision to live together must be mutual and devoid of coercion.
The judgment arose from an appeal filed by a wife against the decision of the Family Court in Indore, which had dismissed her divorce petition on the grounds of insufficient evidence, absence of police complaints, and lack of corroborating witnesses.
The couple married in April 2014, and the wife, employed as an Assistant Manager with LIC Housing Finance Limited since 2017, alleged that her unemployed husband coerced her into leaving her government job and living with him until he secured employment. She claimed this, coupled with mental and emotional harassment, forced her to live separately and seek divorce.
The wife further argued that her husband filed a petition under s. 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, seeking restitution of conjugal rights, only after she initiated divorce proceedings. She contended that this was a counter-tactic rather than an effort for reconciliation.
The High Court observed that the Family Court had overlooked critical aspects of the wife's testimony, including her allegations of coercion and her earlier request for mutual divorce due to compatibility issues. The Bench also noted that the husband’s refusal to consent to a mutual divorce, despite the wife's clear intentions, amounted to cruelty.
In its order dated November 13, the High Court dissolved the marriage and overturned the Family Court's 2022 decision, granting the appellant a divorce. Advocate Raghvendra Singh Raghuvanshi represented the appellant.
