Supreme Court: Distinction Between Gifts and Dowry

is this specific only to the Dowry Prohibition Act?

Sure seems that way. The question before the court was whether demands of gifts at some occassions such as the birth of a child should be grouped with dowry, and they declined.

I will give certain clarifications.

The Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 is different from the Section 498a of IPC.

They are two different laws.

Most Misused "Section 498a" is actually exactly a "Dowry Law". It is actually a Law against "Cruelty by Husband and Relatives".

"Section 498a" is a law against "Cruelty" with or without "Dowry Demand" involved.

When dowry demand is involved, then Section 498a is filed and also DP Act 3&4 are added. Often the section of IPC 406, voluntarily causing hurt (section 323) and attempt to murder are also added. So, it is not un-natural to have 5 to 10 different sections of IPC being added against accused and as many relatives as possible being roped in.

Please note,

In year 2006, there were 63,128 cases of Cruelty were filed out of which only 4505 case are filed under "Dowry Prohibition Act".

http://ncrb.nic.in/cii2006/cii-2006/Table%205.2.pdf

============

Regarding this judgement, I must say that Supreme Court is in fact quite annoyed with the inaction of Indian Parliament towards putting a stop to "Misuse of 498a and DP act".

The impact on innocents can be easily stopped by making it "Bailable and Compoundable" and the bail can be cancelled by a judge if the conditions of bail are violated. Malimath committee for judicial reforms also recommended for making the section bailable and compoundable.

Making the section bailable will be a loss for lawyers, women's organisations and police as this will put an end to illegal "out of court" settlements done with threat of 498a and jailing.

=======
It is to be noted that in India the customary gifts are also given by the groom's family to the girl.

For example, in Andhra Pradesh, the grooms family gives gold ornaments to the girl which can often be more than the ornaments given by the girl's family.
=========

I have seen FIRs where the girl has listed the flowers and sweets given as dowry. Even pettycoat and blouse are listed as a dowry items.

The Govt, Feminists and the Civil society does not want to eliminate dowry or extravagant marriages.

Otherwise, they would have created an "anti-dowry" (toll free 1800) phoneline to inform the Dowry Prohibition officer whenever one comes to know about some dowry negotiations taking place anywhere.

For example, if I know that my friend from Kerala is taking 30 lacs of dowry. Now, what can I do by knowing that? NOTHING.

If both parties are Okay with Dowry, then the Govt and Feminists are also Okay with it. In fact, Govt officials and Feminists will also happily attend such weddings.

If there is a "anti-dowry phoneline", then at least a Dowry Prohibition officer could have reached to the families, put a fine of Rs 50,000 and given a good warning and supervised to see that the marriage expenses are low.

Given Govt officials are corrupt and bribable, Govt has no capacity implement finer versions of law.

You are right Sumanth.

In my case a bowl set for Rs 349/- was listed as dowry item. Incidentally it was one of those very few items that was genuinely given by bride side to their daughter.

I have shot a photograph for that Rs. 349/- bowl set with my(personal) Rs 30,000 camera and have preserved it as a part of my marriage album archives.

*** The camera could not be contested because it as bought by me from US 3 years before marriage and luckily I had a bill for it lying with him.

Sumanth:

""For example, if I know that my friend from Kerala is taking 30 lacs of dowry. Now, what can I do by knowing that? NOTHING.""

How about asking your friend if his wife to be has any unmarried sisters?

Sumanth:

""I have seen FIRs where the girl has listed the flowers and sweets given as dowry. Even pettycoat and blouse are listed as a dowry items."'

Yes, some people can be petty. What though if it were not a pettycoat but a fur-coat? mink?

[EDITED]

Sumanth,

[EDITED]

In any case, it is okay to demand gifts for your baby or during the birth of the baby isn't it? So why not write about shitty items then?

Sumanth:

""For example, if I know that my friend from Kerala is taking 30 lacs of dowry. Now, what can I do by knowing that? NOTHING.""

How about stewing in your own juices since he is about to rake in so much while you are reduced to this sad state, your lectures at MIT's Sloan School of Business and your relationship with eminent statesmen notwithstanding. But then, you will have the last laugh when you head off to the moon.

Sumanth:

""If both parties are Okay with Dowry, then the Govt and Feminists are also Okay with it. In fact, Govt officials and Feminists will also happily attend such weddings.""

Your dream scenario right? Then how did things go so dramatically wrong for you?

""For example, if I know that my friend from Kerala is taking 30 lacs of dowry. Now, what can I do by knowing that? NOTHING.""


[EDITED]

#2 sumanth

nice clarification.
It is funny that, these women are categorizing petty coats and blows also as dowry.

#2
sumanth

!!!In fact, Govt officials and Feminists will also happily attend such weddings!!!

for them all rules are for others, not for them. In India we have many feminists and pro-feminists, Many young men supports feminism. But they will take dowry. If all these youngsters oppose dowry, and won't take dowry, no need of 498a or DP. But nothing happens like that.

#2
sumanth

!!!Otherwise, they would have created an "anti-dowry" (toll free 1800) phoneline to inform the Dowry Prohibition officer whenever one comes to know about some dowry negotiations taking place anywhere.!!!!

True, it will work. why don't our so-called women empowerment seekers and women organizations won't demand this. The truth is they also take dowry, but preaches others to not take dowry. "rules are for others" syndrome. If this will be implemented, they won't get dowry for their sons.

@ #12

read it as, Why don't our so-called women empowerment seekers and women organizations demand this. (remove "won't").

Ravi wrote:

""#2 sumanth

nice clarification.
It is funny that, these women are categorizing petty coats and blows also as dowry.""

Great! So the "blows" they receive from their husbands are also classified as dowry rather than evidence of domestic violence?! Good going son!

commonsense

my dear friend, read it as blouse. Any way you can understand this little mistake, if you read the comment by sumanth, I clearly mentioned #2 sumanth, means comment number 2, by sumanth. read it.understand it.

[please refrain from using "nicks" editor]

Scheming between a parent (P) and their son (S)


S: Mommy mommy look , my friend is getting married and he is getting 30 lacs dowry and that too the bride is happily obliging.

P: Really?

S: Can't you put me up for sale anymore, so what if we have a history of criminal records!

P: I will try Beta....but the risk is high, You know girls today, they are educated and know the law. Very possessive about their bras also, leave alone any saris that I an expect from her or her parents. Diamonds are out of the questions now.

S: I will get married first and then I will kids. Because these days it is okay to demand gifts from the wife and her parents during the birth of her child. That way we can put our demands and nothing will be illegal. We will make money also, ask for diamonds ( in the name of the baby) and can work our way around the law.

P: Smart beta very smart. Just like last time, when we had been 498ed we had already taken the anticipatory bail where in we had assassinated the character of your wife and she was running like a mad dog from court to court and made a scene, and in the end she got nothing but got stuck up with a divorce.

S: Arrey mommy, we need to find the loop holes in the law, misuse it and work around it and in our favor.

To all the sniffers:

Please make sure you act smart and ask for money in the name of the baby's birth. Play it safe and sound and totally LEGAL. Supreme Court is in your court now. Congratulations!


The Supreme Court has ruled that demand for money and presents from parents of a married girl at the time of birth of her child or for other ceremonies

Get to work....produce babies....and each member of the family ( MIL, SIL, FIL , BIL (and his family) and husband can all ask for a CAR and Diamonds.

To all so-called women empowerment seekers

don't worry,
---------------------------------------------------
"The Supreme Court has ruled that demand for money and presents from parents of a married girl at the time of birth of her child or for other ceremonies, as is prevalent in society, may be deprecable but cannot be categorised as dowry to make it a punishable offence.
This means, if a daughter-in-law is being harassed for customary gifts by parents-in-law, then they could be booked under ordinary penal provisions but not under the tough anti-dowry laws providing stringent punishments."
-----------------------------------------------
this what court said.

so, if you are dreaming about, filing 498a cases on husband and extort huge money by showing these, sorry, yours dreams will never fulfilled. What happened guys, use the other sections in the "law" why only 498a?

You are right Sumanth.

In my case a bowl set for Rs 349/- was listed as dowry item. Incidentally it was one of those very few items that was genuinely given by bride side to their daughter.

I shot a photograph for that Rs. 349/- bowl set with my(personal) Rs 30,000 camera and have preserved it as a part of my marriage album archives.

*** The camera could not be contested because it as bought by me from US 3 years before marriage and luckily I had a bill for it lying with him.

I have met many people (lawyers, groom families and bride families).

After talking to them I have found that dowry as described in law and as perceived by dowry givers and dowry takers has a wide gap in its perception.

While the law prohibits dowry giving and dowry taking and terms it illegal in every sense, the perception of common people(mostly bride families) however is that it is only the dowry demand which is illegal. They think anything that is exchanged if they condone it is not a dowry.

Thus if the law has to be normalized to the perception of people (for whom it is actually meant), it has to under go some serious changes.

In fact, if people perception is to be taken into account, DOWRY law should be abolished and instead replaced by law against extortion (which by the way is already part of our legal framework).

That way it will be easier to cover and book both genders for breach of law.

and here we have further proof that the vonsiffers are simply a bunch of angry men who could not keep their wives.

NEXT!

Hats off to SC for signaling that many more such observations will follow if Govt keeps on ignoring its repeated warning over loosely drafted laws and then their misuse.

Govt (read feminists) have over legislationized the constitution in the name of women empowerment. This is leading to one incident drawing 5-6 IPCs since they overlap even if there is no substance but the word dowry attached to the allegation.

Taking women's allegation on face value is quickly loosing ground.

SC will keep on doing this until Govt. listens to its warning on LEGAL TERRORISM.

smallsquirrel... keep their wives???

That does not sound too progressive(and in fact down right derogatory to the status of wives in society) especially when it comes from a feminist mouthpiece.


Hope other feminists would pitch in to clarify their collective stand on the matter of keeping wives .


Well we may or may not be angry men, but how does that change the equation? I would say your allegation is malicious, is in poor taste and devoid of any rational argument.

However, Thankyou for sharing your state of mind.

feminist mouthpiece?
HAHAHHAHAHH!

you guys get funnier by the damned day.


and also, you know what that meant. I did not say "keep your wife locked up" or "hold your wife hostage"... it meant that no woman would stay in your company...

but good try there French Fry.

FF:

""I shot a photograph for that Rs. 349/- bowl set with my(personal) Rs 30,000 camera and have preserved it as a part of my marriage album archives""

Wow, how petty can one get, petty-coats for dowry nothwithstanding...

Huh? These guys are like nano-bots...you strike, they scatter and then they are back again with new idiocies to bray about..

and FF, the fact that you do not understand why the fact that a person would not wish to stay with a continuously angry person as a partner illustrates exactly why you vonsiffers are in the situation you are in to begin with.

your antiquated views, your backwards logic, and your anger that reality does not conform to your warped visions all have driven your spouses away.

you seem to be looking for scapegoats, when all you need to do is look in the mirror.

good luck with that.

FF:

""I shot a photograph for that Rs. 349/- bowl set with my(personal) Rs 30,000 camera and have preserved it as a part of my marriage album archives.""

???

DC editors,

The following statement by a commentator is a Crime According to the Indian Penal Code.

I would request you to immediately note the IP address from which the comment is posted.

--------------------
Comment No: 5 and 6
[EDITED]
--------------------

This comment by Avinash is a crime in India. This is enough to sue him for Defamation under Section 500 of Indian Penal Code and also "insulting women".

I will contact you (the DC editors) separately for the IP address (or service provider details) from which this defamatory comment is posted and the crime of "insulting women" is committed.

---------
I do not consider Editors of DC to be responsible for the defamatory comment.
---------

It does not matter whether Avinash is his real name or not. If it is posted from a company's IP addresses, then the company will own the responsibility for the defamation and it is its responsibility to track the person accused of the crime.

============
Editors of DC, Please note: Any personal defamation is a criminal act. It is legal to say, politicians are pimps. But it is illegal to say, a particular politician (mentioning name) as a pimp.
============

To Feminists in DC:
===================

Avinash's comment "cheap mothers and sisters who pimped...." are chauvinistic. It is a fact that some men who claim themselves to be proponents of women's causes use "Teri Maki" sort of language.

The derogatory language towards women is prevalent all over India and it is used not just against women, who belong to SIFF, but against large sections of women in India.
=============

I will make sure that "direct personal" attacks and defamatory statements are stopped in blogosphere even if it means sending legal notices and dragging the accused to courts.

EXCELLENT, and in the meantime can we prosecute you for every single time you have referred to me as a feminist bitch? or any number of the personal insults you made against me?

and then... there was *SILENCE*

#24...smallsquirrel

yeah we look funny when we wear feminists hats and masks.

But, why only we, in fact everybody looks funny when he/she puts on feminist masquerade on the top of his/her patriarchal reinforcements( there goes thy helpless, weak, poor woman) .

#27...smallsquirrel

the fact that a person would not wish to stay with a continuously angry person as a partner

I agree with your theories here, but


why you vonsiffers are in the situation you are in to begin with.

your antiquated views, your backwards logic, and your anger that reality does not conform to your warped visions all have driven your spouses away.

I am laughing at your speculations here.

Just wanted to let you know "A victim need not always be meek and weak". Had that been the case, nations would have been employing cows to serve justice.

#24...smallsquirrel

yeah we look funny when we wear feminists hats and masks.

But, why only we, in fact everybody looks funny when he/she puts on feminist masquerade on top of his/her patriarchal reinforcements of type( there goes the helpless, weak, poor woman ) .

#27...smallsquirrel

the fact that a person would not wish to stay with a continuously angry person as a partner

I agree with your theories here, but


why you vonsiffers are in the situation you are in to begin with.

your antiquated views, your backwards logic, and your anger that reality does not conform to your warped visions all have driven your spouses away.

I am laughing at your speculations here.

Just wanted to let you know "A victim need not always be meek and weak". Had that been the case, nations would have been employing cows to serve justice.

[EDITED]

FF,
No most people know that giving or taking dowry is illegal.But that doesn't stop them - after all, most people also know that jumping a red signal is illegal !! Unfortunately, we indians sometimes think the law is meant for others. When we break it, its because we are interpreting it in the spirit of the law - so when we took dowry, it was only gifts, really yaaar...worth 350, or 3500, or 3 lakhs!! just like we jumped the signal because there was absolutely no traffic coming, honestly, yaar....

Ravi:

""commonsense

my dear friend, read it as blouse. Any way you can understand this little mistake, if you read the comment by sumanth, I clearly mentioned #2 sumanth, means comment number 2, by sumanth. read it.understand it.""

Ravi, even if someone's wife is wearing a "blouse" when "blows" are delivered to her, it would still be DV.

I will do what I have to do with the commentator who wrote comments (5) and (6).

Amit:

It is not a criminal act to use the word pimp in a generic manner. But, calling a specific person's mother and sister as pimps is a "clear criminal act". The laws of land apply to cyberspace as well. Anyway, I will get the IP address from which Avinash posted the defamatory comments. DC owners are responsible to give me the IP addresses as these defamatory comments are broadcasted from DC into the cyberspace.

Smallsquirrel,

I never used any personal attacks on you. Please see the comments again.

If you still feel that I have indulged in "criminal language", then you can sue me.

I never used anyone's name with vulgar adjectives. I never called any specific person or that specific person's mothers or sisters as "xxxxxxx", "xxxxxx" or that.

The comments have been edited - as they should be - please adhere to the comment policy, and remember, two wrongs don't make a right

Smallsquirrel,

I called feminists as bitches or bastards.

That is not illegal. I am not responsible for the interpretations of any person alive or dead, who imagines or imagined himself or herself as a feminist.

Calling any particular person a bitch or pimp or bastard by taking the name is "verbal abuse" and can also be considered as "defamation" according to law. All this activity is criminal. The comments (5) and (6) fall under this category as they use a specific person's name and vulgar adjectives are used.

Move on - the comments have been edited

Sumanth and other sniffers

Do you even know the difference between a "generic statement" and a "specific statement "... I guess not.

Make sure you delete some of your internal emails from the public yahoo groups as well where in you have not spared anybody and used some of the choicest of adjectives against some relevant personalities. Most of those emails are available on the Google search as well. Make sure you delete all the comments that you have ever used on female journalists including the authors on DC.

And who is Sumanth -the spoofer?? Are you "anyone specific" or "someone generic"? There the ball is in your court again. I do not know you.

And not to forget the websites that you / your sidekicks have created wherein you all have entered your spouse's names and address. Of course who put those names on display on public websites which are all part of blogosphere is anyone's guess and up to the judge and his discretion.

For example http://mynation. net/registry/*****
http://my**tion. wordpress. com/498a- girls-legal- terrorists

I have deliberately mutilated the above links as I for one do not want readers to access those web pages and make a mockery of the victims in there. But you know for one that is illegal, defamation of character, illegal use of information when the matter us sub-judiced, character assassination, and not done. Of course, I know no one will take ownership of the details in there, but like I said it will be the judge's discretion and anybody's guess as to how those names collectively were put up on the site or did they just automatically appear on there. Hmmmm..

Regarding the indecent Language:
================================

It is a fact that most Indians lack the intellectual capability to think cohesively and argue without getting personal. Moreover, most Indians lack bare minimum levels of "individuality".

So, when anyone challenges the existing "stereotypes" or assumptions, that person is viciously attacked by the establishment and the mindless clones. Often vulgar language is used.

So, what should the minority of population who talk "truth" do? Keep quite?

A famous blogger called Peter Griffin and his followers viciously attacked SIF websites in his blog in 2005. The Maa, Behen language was used against me by some commentators. We, the SIFF guys had no hope that there are any real sane, rational bloggers around. We presented and keep presenting data to show that feminists are lying, and not even a handful rose against the feminist hypocrisy.

Once we started using proper language, the Indian blogosphere started respecting us.

Even today, so many fools including police officials argue that in India so many laws are misused and so many innocents get jailed. So, whats the big fuss about 498a misuse? Now, what do one do with such people and such pathetic thinking?

We are immune to all kinds of name calling. We love the people who use "teri maki" sort of language.

We use very decent and rational language, when we talk to media.

====================
I raised some very valid points and also highlighted the flaws in the existing dowry laws in my comment no.3. I clearly showed that "dowry laws" are not effective.
====================

On a lighter note:

I am just wondering if the gifts exchanged or demanded by a spouse (male or female) in Valentine's Day can be considered dowry.

And, why the dowry law should not be made gender neutral as the demand of gifts can happen from wife's side or the husband's side during valentine's day.

sumanth:

1: What does your ex have to say?

and

2: How believable are your rants? (here is a reminder)

********

thank you sumanth for this long over due confession

i will save this to remind you tomorrow and the day after and every other occasion when you decide to pontificate;)

I am a liar. I am a liar.

Go and do what you want to do.

If it makes you feel happy, then I accept.

I have mastered the feminine and I know what tolerance is.

I being a liar, does not prove that feminists are not liars or hypocrites.

I am a liar, I am having double standards and I am a treacherous person. - Sumanth October 14, 2007 12:58 PM

Looks like temporal has the patent on RANTS :-))

#46:

the first query in #45 is for your ex too;)

#47
temporal

I think you know the definition of spam. The #45 post you are posting repeatedly, categorized as spam. ;)

#38
commonsense

!!Ravi, even if someone's wife is wearing a "blouse" when "blows" are delivered to her, it would still be DV.!!

Oh! come on, commonsense. you are too much yaar, why only blouse, even she wear a T-shirt, shirt, what ever may be, giving 'blows' to her is DV, I know that. But what i said, is different. I thought that after giving the reference (#2,sumanth) you can understand what i said. But you still.. ;)

48:

this is a gentle dose intended for the patient when he tends to go overboard and he understands that:)

if used daily or on the hour it could be a nuisance or a spam

used judiciously it helps the patient:)

annamma

!!When we break it, its because we are interpreting it in the spirit of the law - so when we took dowry, it was only gifts, really yaaar...worth 350, or 3500, or 3 lakhs!!!!!

I agree with your comment, that most of the indian feels that laws are for others, that's why they take dowry.Even feminists also take dowry (same "rules are for others",of course this is my statement).

But how can you compare 350 rupees goods given to a person, with a car/scooter. Just take a case, if anyone arranges a birthday party, people who comes to that birthday party gives gifts. Not only that, for every celebration, people give gifts(at least flowers). Can we say it is not good. like that, at the time of marriage also people will give gift, but what should categorize as gift or dowry?

If it goes in that form, if a person from groom side asks a matches to bride side person to lit cigarette, if a women from groom side asks a flower, if boy ask a chocolate..can we consider them as dowry, just because all the above asked at the time of marriage.

I am sorry, i went overboard to describe what i want to ask. my intention is just to ask you how can you justify something as gift or dowry? any way for any occasion, gifts are common ( in any society).

Dowry Items:
1>Archie Card Rs 50
2>BirthDay Cake Rs 400
3>Birth Day/Aniversary Presents
4>Diamond Ring to Wife on V Day !!!
...
...

Mayawati filed IT return showing her income as Rs 52 crores stating all of that is the gift to her from her party!!!

And guess what - The Return is accepted by IT Department!!!

But UPA Govt has problems when SC says the presents during and after marriage are not Dowry!!!

Rathor,

Not to worry, very soon the UPA govt will not have a problem either.

And then it is party time for the sniffers, break your spinal cord, roll on to the couch, and demand dowry.

NOW , the law will work its way around your(sniffers') dowry demands/ gifts/ valentine day goodies/ baby gifts/ b'day gifts/ gifts for MIL, SIL her family/ FIL/BIL etc etc.. Hats off to the Indian law ( and even the editors of DC)

Good old days are back.

Sumanth:

""Calling any particular person a bitch or pimp or bastard by taking the name is "verbal abuse" and can also be considered as "defamation" according to law. All this activity is criminal. The comments (5) and (6) fall under this category as they use a specific person's name and vulgar adjectives are used.""

And when you stop foaming and frothing, do learn how to read. Are you sure you refer to #5 and #6? It's not edited, so feel free and read them again...the moon mission is almost ready...

Sumanth:

""It is a fact that most Indians lack the intellectual capability to think cohesively and argue without getting personal. Moreover, most Indians lack bare minimum levels of "individuality".""

Wait, you are still Indian, so don't indulge in self-abuse (also known as self-service). Not until you are on the moon...then you will not be Indian, but simply lunar...the adjective of it is, lunatic...

Sumanth:

""So, when anyone challenges the existing "stereotypes" or assumptions, that person is viciously attacked by the establishment and the mindless clones. Often vulgar language is used""

You are stereotyping yourself and then viciously biting your own tail..mind your clone my friend...

sumanth:

""We are immune to all kinds of name calling. We love the people who use "teri maki" sort of language."'

So, all those threats about suing were just that? Just cowardly threats. Are you claiming now that you are not quie the "suer" that you wish to be..."suer" means something interesting in Hindi. Somebody please tell me. Otherwise this "suer" will threaten to "sue" me, since this is what all "suers" do...it's in their nature...

Ravi:

""I think you know the definition of spam. The #45 post you are posting repeatedly, categorized as spam. ;)""

Yes, spam is cured meat sold in tin cans. Are you getting any?

Rath-hole wrote:

""Mayawati filed IT return showing her income as Rs 52 crores stating all of that is the gift to her from her party!!!""

Plain jealous or sad that you cannot marry her?

Ravi:

""Oh! come on, commonsense. you are too much yaar, why only blouse, even she wear a T-shirt, shirt, what ever may be, giving 'blows' to her is DV, I know that. But what i said, is different. I thought that after giving the reference (#2,sumanth) you can understand what i said. But you still.. ;)""

Trust me a "blow" is a blow even if the lady is wearing a T-Shirt over a blouse. It is still DV. Unless you want to take the meaning of a "blow" in an entirely different direction...

Ravi:


""I think you know the definition of spam. The #45 post you are posting repeatedly, categorized as spam. ;)""

[EDITED]

[EDITED]:

""But UPA Govt has problems when SC says the presents during and after marriage are not Dowry!!!""

Thakur Sahab, why do you have to refer to Mayawati as SC? Caste one-upanship, huh? [EDITED]

Sumanth:

""We, the SIFF guys had no hope that there are any real sane, rational bloggers around. We presented and keep presenting data to show that feminists are lying, and not even a handful rose against the feminist hypocrisy.""

Poor you! Would it have made a difference if the feminists were standing up, not lying? And what pray is a "handful rose"? [EDITED]

commonsense
!!!rust me a "blow" is a blow even if the lady is wearing a T-Shirt over a blouse. It is still DV.!!!

strange, finally one thing you accepted that i said. *good signs*

[EDITED]

OK, end this sniping

Aman

if the #67 is for me, i don't have any objection. I will not respond to such comments on me, assuming they will take care of by DC editors.

[EDITED]

Great going commonsense :)

However, I am waiting to see if there is any response to 43 and 45. Not that I expect anything...even if I receive a notice that will be great;-)

Where can I find the email addresses of the editors who specifically edit comments?

Also I would like to have the email address of Aaman Lamba.

Thanks!

you can mail me/us at desicritics at gmail dot com

and please stop using multiple nicknames