The US-Resident Dumbo filed DV Case to grab up her father’s property that he had made into the name of his grandson. Justice Shiv Narayan Dhingra ji had shown her, her right place and dismissed this Appeal.Vijay Verma Vs State Nct Of Delhi & Anr. on 13 August, 2010
The cunning knife who is begging maintenance under HMA 24, cannot travel 125 KMs to attend Court and requires the assistance of an adult member of the family to travel, petitioned for Transfer of cases to her den location.
Just for some ‘utensils, Bed and Rukhwat items’ she denied to settle the matter even when the hubby dear is willing to dole out, an amount of Rs.10.50 lac as a One Time Comprehensive Settlement and part ways with the Applicant/ wife before it became more painful.
From Para 8 and 9,
At this juncture, the learned Advocate for the husband submits that though it was beyond his means, he has somehow accumulated Rs.10.50 lac so as to resolve this entire issue once and for all and part ways. If the wife wants to agitate on the utensils and Rukhwat, the husband is withdrawing his offer of depositing Rs.10.50 lac in this Court.
I see reason in the submissions of the learned Advocate for the husband and therefore, the offer that the Respondent/ Husband had made earlier, is permitted to be withdrawn and the amount of Rs.10.50 lac need not be deposited in this Court.
The name of the knife is a little… Shit’al… LOLShital Dhake Vs Krushna Dhake on 06 October, 2018
High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) has held that, there is no harm if such a print out from the official website is placed before this Court.
From Para 2 and 3,
Shital Dhake Vs Krushna Dhake on 02 February, 2018
I am of the view that this apprehension is misplaced since the print out of the orders of this Court from the official website has sanctity and the trial Courts are expected to consider the said orders, if they are cited after taking a print out from the official website. The said orders are also available before the trial Court from the official website and there can be a counter verification to find out whether such an order is actually uploaded to the official website or not. In this backdrop, there is no harm if such a print out from the official website is placed before this Court.
It is informed by the learned Advocates that, in several cases before various trial Courts, the learned Judges insist on production of the certified copy of the order and they are not inclined to consider the print out of an order from the official website of the Bombay High Court, as being a reliable document. As observed in the foregoing paragraphs, in the event of any doubt in the mind of the learned Judge, it can be checked from the official website of the Bombay High Court as to whether such an order has been uploaded or not? Once the order is uploaded on the official website, it is a reliable document to be considered by the Court before whom it is
High Court of Kerala has delivered this order wherein it held that, “these provisions do not prohibit the spouse, who has obtained an ex parte decree of divorce, to marry again before the expiry of the time for filing an application to set aside the ex parte decree or during the pendency of such an application filed by the opposite spouse.”
From Para 25,
Taking cue from the decision of the Supreme Court in Parimal (supra), we are of the firm view that remarriage of the spouse who obtained the ex parte decree of divorce will notrender the application for setting aside the ex parte decree filedby the opposite spouse infructuous. Remarriage of the spouse is not a relevant factor to be taken into account in deciding the merits of an application filed for setting aside an ex parte decree of divorce. The application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure has to be considered on its own merits within the four corners of that provision.
From Para 27,
The lower court has observed that remarriage of the appellant would amount to bigamy. Learned counsel for theappellant submitted that this observation made by the lower court is wrong and unwarranted. We find force in this submission.
From Para 28,
Denny Pazhoor Vs Greeta Sunitha Vincent on 17 October, 2018
The following ingredients are necessary to constitute bigamy:
(1) the accused must have contracted first marriage;
(2) he must have married again;
(3) the first marriage is subsisting at the time of the second marriage and
(4) the spouse must be living.
Now Hon’ble High of Punjab and Haryana also held that Courts/Police cannot impound anyone’s passport in India. Only Passport Authority can impound/revoke a passport in India.Capt. Anila Bhatia Vs State of Haryana on 09 October, 2018
This is the appeal made by the Pakistan terrorist Kasab which was dismissed by Hon’ble Supreme Court.Md.Ajmal Md.Amir Kasab @Abu Mujahid Vs State Of Maharashtra on 29 August, 2012
A peculiar case where the knife filed DV on in-laws alone, excluding her husband. The brother-in-law of the knife file a complaint to police that knife has been filing false cases and police filed a case under IPC 182 after permission from SSP. Knife moved High Court for quash of this case and it was dismissed for lack of merits. Now Supreme Court has set aside this order of High Court and allowed the knife’s petition for quash.
From Para 14,
The complaint, if made, by any woman alleging offence under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 committed by any member of the family, the matter is to be looked upon seriously. The Police without proper verification and investigation cannot submit a report that no case is made out. The Investigating Agency is required to make proper enquiry not only from the members of the family but also from neighbours, friends and others. After such enquiry, the Investigating Agency may form a definite opinion and file report but it is for the Court to decide finally whether to take cognizance for any offence under any of the provisions of the Act.
This is where the judge takes a tangential swipe at a DV case to 498A case. Quite peculiar indeed.Santosh Bakshi Vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 30 June, 2014
The High Court order is given below.Santosh Bakshi Vs State Of Punjab And Others on 12 July, 2013
In this case adjudicated by National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, it was held unequivocally that a murder is an accidental death from the perspective of the policy holder or accidental death insurance policy. Moreover ‘Murder’ was not specifically excepted in the policy.
It has granted Rs.20,00,000/- sum assured with 9% interest per annum from the date of repudiation along with cost of Rs.25,000/-. In addition, reasonable compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- shall also be paid by the insurance company to the nominees of the policy holder/deceased.Royal Sundaram Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. Vs Pawan Balram Mulchandani On 25 September, 2018
This is the landmark judgment from Hon’ble Supreme Court, which laid down the law that under CrPC 482, High Courts can quash a FIR or non-compoundable case such as 498A and 406 IPC.B.S. Joshi & Ors Vs State Of Haryana & Anr on 13 March, 2003
Another landmark judgment which cites this judgment is here.
A similar judgment to this one here from Apex Court.Jitendra Raghuvanshi & Ors Vs Babita Raghuvanshi & Anr on 15 March, 2013