The Knife eyed share in houses and in lands of In Laws via this DV Case. Since maintenance was already granted in CrPC 125 case, no maintenance was granted in DVC. As there are no specific allegations of DV on respondent and also incidentally they got acquittal from the 498A case, no protection order was also issued.
Hi All
Listing here the links to the state legal services authorities of various states in India
Navigate to this page here if any of the above links fail. There may be update done to the URLs.
This is the super judgment from Justice Altamas Kabir and Justice Cyriac Joseph wherein it was held that while awarding compensation under Section 357(3) Cr.P.C., the Court is within its jurisdiction to add a default sentence of imprisonment.
A wonderful judgment from Hon’ble Supreme Court which held that to make compensation paid to a complainant under 357(3) of CrPC, it is imperative that a Sentence In Default Of Payment Of Compensation is also applied in the order.
Apex Court has levied fine on assaulters and granted compensation to the Appellants.
In this landmark case that got national coverage, it is held by Hon’ble Apex Court that
The fact that a prima facie case has been made out for laying a complaint does not mean that the charge has been established against a person beyond reasonable doubt. That will be thrashed out in the trial itself where the parties will have opportunity to produce evidence and controvert each other’s case exhaustively without any reservation. There may be often a constraint on the part of a person sought to be proceeded against under section 340 Cr.P.C. to come out with all materials in the preliminary enquiry. That constraint will not be there in a regular trial where he will have ample opportunity to defend himself and produce all materials to show that an offence under section 193 IPC has not been made out. That section contemplates that making of a false statement is not enough. It has to be made intentionally. The accused in a trial under section 193 will be able to place all circumstances bearing upon the ingredient of the intention attributed to him.
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
In another judgment, Delhi High Court has turned down the overt act of the Knife to grab hold of the property belonging to her father-in-law via permanent injunction.
Classic case of Knife falsifying in court to grab monies from her mother-in-law. Hon’ble court held that no Shared household proved so no DV and hence dismissed the false petition.
From Para 11,
Now the point that is to be determined, whether the petitioner being daughter-in-law of respondent suffered violence as mentioned under the act by the respondent. On this aspect, the petitioner though stated rivalry stating that the respondent and her daughter harassed her physically and mentally for want of additional dowry, coming to her chief examination itself it is admitted by her that on 30.03.2010 her husband died due to ill-health, after the death of her husband when she went to her in-law’s house along with her children, the respondent did not allow her into the house, which means, it is clear that she has been residing separately along with her husband away from the house of respondent. Moreover coming to the cross-examination of P.w.2, it is admitted by him that his daughter and son-in-law used to reside separately in a separate house on rent basis and the intimation about the death of his son-in-law was informed to his mother by the owner of the house in which his daughter and her husband resided. So, from the above admissions itself it is clear that the petitioner and her husband resided separately from the respondent. So, the concept of shared house hold does not arise as it is admitted by petitioner that the petitioner resided separately from the respondent. Moreover on this aspect this Court inclined to rely upon the Judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.R.Batra and Another V. Smt. Taruna Batra (AIR 2007 S.C. 1118 and 1119), in Neetu Mittal V. Kanta Mittal and Others (AIR 2009 DELHI 72 and 72) and in Umesh Sharma V. State (AIR 2010 (NOC) 515 (DEL.).
The Division Bench of Hon’ble Delhi High Court has produced this judgment which held that the right of residence of a woman in the property on which her husband has right, title or interest that the wife can claim residence and that, too, if no commensurate alternative is provided by the husband.
Read this judgment to understand how the biased judges give liberal reliefs using gender-biased laws such as PWDV Act. In the process wrongly interpret the Delhi High Court judgment, wherein in reality High Court has declined giving maintenance to unscrupulous knife, our judge in this present case understood and interpreted it totally wrongly and to suit the Knife.
The judgment cited in this order and wrongly interpreted is available here.
Bad Behavior has blocked 479 access attempts in the last 7 days.
