According to the district level data released by Census Directorate, the 2011 census shows that...
Mr Kumaraswamy recently admitted that he had also secretly tied the knot with actress Radhika and has a daughter with her. The state Lokayukta had demanded disqualification of Kumaraswamy as an MP for violating the Hindu Marriage Act that prohibits polygamy
Former Karnataka chief minister, HD Kumaraswamy, has the support of the ministry of Parliamentary affairs in protecting his “personal life”, which relates to his (second) marriage to a Kannada actress and the assets held by her.
RTI activist Subhas Chandra Agrawal had filed a query with the ministry seeking rules and regulations pertaining to submission of personal information of Members of Parliament (MPs) and the actions to be taken against them in case they fail to furnish all details. The CPIO (chief public information officer) HL Negi, however, seems to agree with Mr Kumaraswamy that whether or not he furnishes the details of his (second) marriage and the assets his wife and children, is his “personal matter”.
Mr Negi said, “The ministry culls out press clippings relating to important political developments, from national newspapers only for information of the joint secretary and secretary of this ministry. The issue of HD Kumaraswamy having more than one wife is a personal matter and therefore this issue was not culled out by the ministry.”
Mr Agrawal has filed an appeal with the ministry, asking for the details. He said, “Furnishing incomplete details of spouse/s and his/her assets and wealth to concerned public authority is improper. I appeal that the learned CPIO may kindly be directed to revisit the relevant queries and furnish me a proper reply, if necessary after seeking details from the concerned honourable Parliamentarian HD Kumaraswamy.”
Mr Kumaraswamy’s name has been associated with the land grab scandal in Karnataka, in which former CM BS Yedyurappa is also involved. The Karnataka Lokayukta has summoned both of them along with others to appear before the court on 24th May. Mr Kumaraswamy had already moved the high court for anticipatory bail, and was granted the same on Friday.
Mr Kumaraswamy is married to Anita, who is a member of Karnataka assembly. However, he recently admitted that he had also secretly tied the knot with actress Radhika and has a daughter with her. The Lok Sabha member had refused to divulge details of assets in the name of Radhika and her child and had told the media that his marriage is a “personal matter”.
The Lokayukta had demanded a list of assets held by his wife shortly after a PIL was filed in the high court that demanded disqualification of Kumaraswamy as an MP for violating the Hindu Marriage Act that prohibits polygamy. However, the PIL was rejected.
While some judgements had stated that the 15 days period could be waived off, several other rulings had said that the time period was mandatory and no cognisance could be taken before it expiry
New Delhi: The Supreme Court has referred to a larger bench the question whether a person can be tried for a cheque bounce, even before the expiry of the 15 days notice period issued by a complainant, reports PTI.
A bench of Justices TS Thakur and Gyan Sudha Misra framed two questions for consideration by a larger bench following conflicting judgements by the Supreme Court and a larger number of high courts in the country. Firstly, can cognisance of an offence punishable under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, be taken on the basis of a complaint filed before the expiry of the period of 15 days stipulated in the notice required to be served upon the drawer of the cheque in terms of Section 138 (c) of the Act aforementioned? And secondly if answer to the first question is in the negative, can the complainant be permitted to present the complaint again notwithstanding the fact that the period of one month stipulated under Section 142 (b) for the filing of such a complaint has expired?
While some judgements had stated that the 15 days period could be waived off, several other rulings had said that the time period was mandatory and no cognisance could be taken before it expiry. The apex court passed the direction while dealing with an appeal filed by Yogendra Pratap Singh challenging an Allahabad High Court judgement quashing the cognisance taken by a magistrate of the complaint lodged by him against Savitri Pandey. Singh had filed a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act against respondent Savitri Pandey in the court of additional civil judge, magistrate, Sonbhadra, Uttar Pradesh after four cheques allegedly issued by the woman bounced. As required under Section 138 (c), Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, he served her with a notice calling upon her to pay the amount.