My husband watches his friends rape me here from abroad: Uttar Pradesh woman
Bulandshahr: In a distressing incident, a 35-year-old woman from Uttar Pradesh's Bulandshahr has accused her husband of allowing his friends to rape her for the past three years in exchange for money, while he watched the video recording of the sexual assault from Saudi Arabia, where he works.
In her police complaint, the survivor shared the details of her distressing ordeal. She stated that about three years ago, her husband returned home with two friends and permitted them to rape her, as reported by Times of India on Thursday.
"Both the men live in the same locality in Bulandshahr, and they would assault me often even when my husband was abroad, and video recorded their acts. When I confronted my husband, he told me to remain silent as they gave him money," the woman stated in her police complaint. “My husband would watch the video footage on his mobile phone while sitting in Saudi Arabia. I stayed quiet for the sake of my children, as he use to threatened to divorce me," she added.
Recently, the woman, accompanied by her family, approached Bulandshahr Senior Superintendent of Police Shlok Kumar with her complaint. "Since the matter is three years old, a thorough investigation will be done by the local police, and appropriate action will be taken in the matter," Kumar told the publication.
The couple got married in 2010 and have four children - two boys (aged 13 and 3) and two girls (aged 11 and 7). Her husband works as an automobile mechanic in Saudi Arabia and visits home once or twice a year.
The survivor’s brother told TOI that the family only learned about her situation two weeks ago. He explained that his sister had suffered in silence, not telling anyone about the abuse. Her husband had recently returned home, and after a quarrel between the couple, she finally gathered the courage to speak up. It was then that they discovered the extent of the assault she had endured over the years.
"She kept silent for the sake of her children and family's reputation. At present, she is nearly a month pregnant,” he shared. He further claimed that the accused and his his associates are trying to flee abroad to evade arrest. "We demand justice," he added.
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.
SC dismisses pleas seeking review of 2023 verdict declining legal sanction to same-sex marriage
New Delhi, Jan 9: The Supreme Court on Thursday dismissed a batch of pleas seeking to review its October 2023 verdict declining legal sanction to same-sex marriage.
A five-judge bench of Justices B R Gavai, Surya Kant, B V Nagarathna, P S Narasimha and Dipankar Datta took up about 13 petitions related to the matter in chambers and dismissed them.
"We do not find any error apparent on the face of the record. We further find that the view expressed in both the judgements is in accordance with law and as such, no interference is warranted. Accordingly, the review petitions are dismissed," the bench said.
It said the judges have carefully gone through the judgements delivered by Justice (since retired) S Ravindra Bhat speaking for himself and for Justice (since retired) Hima Kohli as well as the concurring opinion expressed by Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, constituting the majority view.
The bench also rejected a prayer made in the review petitions for hearing in an open court.
According to practice, the review pleas are considered in chambers by the judges.
The new bench was constituted after Justice Sanjiv Khanna, the present CJI, recused from hearing the review petitions on July 10, 2024.
Notably, Justice P S Narasimha is the only member of the original Constitution bench comprising five judges which delivered the verdict, as former CJI D Y Chandrachud and Justices S K Kaul, Ravindra Bhat and Hima Kohli have retired.
A five-judge Constitution bench led by then CJI Chandrachud on October 17, 2024, refused to accord legal backing to same-sex marriages and held there was "no unqualified right" to marriage with the exception of those recognised by law.
The apex court, however, made a strong pitch for the rights of LGBTQIA++ persons so that they didn't face discrimination in accessing goods and services available to others, safe houses known as "garima greh" in all districts for shelter to members of the community facing harassment and violence, and dedicated hotlines in case of trouble.
In its judgement, the bench held transpersons in heterosexual relationships had the freedom and entitlement to marry under the existing statutory provisions.
It said an entitlement to legal recognition of the right to union, akin to marriage or civil union, or conferring legal status to the relationship could be only done through an "enacted law".
The five-judge Constitution bench delivered four separate verdicts on a batch of 21 petitions seeking legal sanction for same-sex marriages.
All five judges were unanimous in refusing the legal recognition to same-sex marriage under the Special Marriage Act and observed it was within Parliament's ambit to change the law for validating such a union.
While former CJI Chandrachud wrote a separate 247-page verdict, Justice Kaul penned a 17-page judgement where he broadly agreed with the former's views.
Justice Bhat, who authored an 89-page judgement for himself and Justice Kohli, disagreed with certain conclusions arrived at by the former CJI, including on applicability of adoption rules for such couples.
Justice Narasimha in his 13-page verdict was in complete agreement with the reasoning and conclusion of Justice Bhat.
The judges were unanimous in holding that queerness was a natural phenomenon and not an "urban or elite" notion.
In his judgement, the former CJI recorded Solicitor General Tushar Mehta's assurance of forming a committee chaired by the cabinet secretary to define and elucidate the scope of entitlements of such couples in a union.
The LGBTQIA++ rights activists, who won a major legal battle in 2018 in the Supreme Court, which decriminalised consensual gay sex, moved the apex court seeking validation of same-sex marriages and consequential reliefs such as rights to adoption, enrolment as parents in schools, opening of bank accounts and availing succession and insurance benefits.
Some of the petitioners sought the apex court to use its plenary power besides the "prestige and moral authority" to push the society to acknowledge such a union and ensure LGBTQIA++ persons led a "dignified" life like heterosexuals.
