Vinita Kamte, the wife of late 26/11 mayhem martyr Ashok Kamte has written a book alleging the police force ignored crucial information during the terrorist attacks. She said "My book is based on the facts given by the Mumbai police using the RTI Act,"
Vinita claims to have exposed Maria’s ‘feigned ignorance’ about the events unfolding in the Rang Bhawan lane. Kamte, Anti Terrorism Squad (ATS) Chief Hemant Karkare and Senior Inspector Vijay Salaskar, were killed there.

She alleges commissioner Hasan Gafoor told Kamte to rush to Trident Hotel. Later, the control room directed him to Cama Hospital. Maria’s response to her on this was ‘I don’t know’. Gafoor was unavailable for comments despite several attempts.

Vinita also writes about how Karkare’s repeated pleas for reinforcements to block the passage of the terrorists fleeing Cama Hospital went unheeded for over an hour. This, Vinita says, gave terrorists Ajmal Amir Kasab and Abu Ismail free access to the lane.

The control room also failed to move the bleeding officers to hospital in time despite several calls from local residents to the control room, the book claims.

Vinita said she was initially reluctant about writing the book "but my desire to find out the truth about what happened on the night of November 26 leading to my husband's death ultimately triumphed."

If Vinita has shown the courage to come up with such a bold & well researched work we must support her for such courageous act. As a wife of the deceased police officer & ordinary citizen of India she has the whole right to probe into the details of this matter.We must not leave everything to the will & finding of the government departments. Untill & unless we, the ordinary citizen of India show the courage to stand for the justice "true democracy" will never come to the country.Even in the police department lots of scruplous person are involved.

JUDGE : FIRST A MAN OR A JUDGE ?

WILFUL EXIT

The Indian woman’s free will is an elusive entity. The Supreme Court has ruled that a wife who walks out of her matrimonial home “willingly” is not entitled to maintenance. At least, that is what the court has ruled in one specific instance, upholding the ruling of the Punjab and Haryana High Court that denied maintenance to a woman who had left her husband and had filed a complaint against him for demanding dowry. She had moved court asking for divorce on the ground of cruelty, while her husband had filed a petition for the restitution of conjugal rights. This was in 1998. Five years later, the court dismissed her plea for legal separation. No doubt the court in its wisdom had found that her husband was not cruel and that she should have responded to the direction to return to him. She had also left her children behind. It is to be assumed that the husband’s petition for her return and the fact that she had left her children behind had nothing to do with the dismissal of her plea. This is important, because a general application of the principle behind the court’s ruling may pose a grave danger to women forced to leave their husband’s homes without even their children. When this woman applied for divorce and maintenance a year later on the ground that she was living separately, the divorce was granted but not the maintenance.

There are numerous instances in which women fear for their lives in their in-laws’ homes, but have no certainty of food and shelter outside it. In many such cases, the woman leaves home, even if she has to leave her children behind, hoping to somehow bring them out if and when she finds a secure shelter. While the act of walking out is technically “willing”, the result of an independent and possibly secret thought process, can this will be described as “free”? The convolutions of the law, the right of the husband to demand the restitution of conjugal rights — given the dangerous psychology of violent men who desire the presence of their most favourite victims — and the cultural baggage a mother trails, incarcerate women within numberless invisible walls. Of course, all this does not mean that women do not try to manipulate the law or exploit their husbands. Such realities merely indicate the care with which the law must step when a woman petitions for maintenance after “walking out” of her marital home.

this judgement shows that how much a judge is man inside than a judge. WILL A JUDGE OR FOR GOD SHAKE ANY HUMAN BEING WILL CONTINUE TO REMAIN IN A JOB OR RELATIONSHIP WHERE THEY HAVE TO FACE INSULT,TORTURE ,HUMILIATION IN EXCHANGE OF FOOD-SHELTHER & CLOTH .