web analytics

Menu

Skip to content
Shades of Knife
  • Home
  • True Colors of a Vile Wife
  • Need Inspiration?
  • Blog Updates
  • SOK Gallery
  • Vile News Reporter
  • About Me
  • Contact Me

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Month: November 2018

Chanmuniya Vs Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha & Anr on 7 October, 2010

Posted on November 30, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This is the landmark ruling from Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein it was held that

“We are of the opinion that a broad and expansive interpretation should be given to the term “wife” to include even those cases where a man and woman have been living together as husband and wife for a reasonably long period of time, and strict proof of marriage should not be a precondition for maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, so as to fulfil the true spirit and essence of the beneficial provision of maintenance under Section 125. We also believe that such an interpretation would be a just application of the principles enshrined in the Preamble to our Constitution, namely, social justice and upholding the dignity of the individual.”

Chanmuniya Vs Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha & Anr on 7 October, 2010

But in a para prior to this para, this case was referred to a larger bench (this was a 3-judge bench). But this case was but after two years dismissed as the advocate for appellant dies and the appellant did not pursue the case. Here is the Dismissal Order:

Chanmuniya Vs Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha and Anr on 5 September 2014

Here is the Para 45,

45.We, therefore, request the Hon’ble Chief Justice to refer the following, amongst other, questions to be decided by a larger Bench. According to us, the questions are:

1. Whether the living together of a man and woman as husband and wife for a considerable period of time would raise the presumption of a valid marriage between them and whether such a presumption would entitle the woman to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C?

2. Whether strict proof of marriage is essential for a claim of maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. having regard to the provisions of Domestic Violence Act, 2005?

3. Whether a marriage performed according to customary rites and ceremonies, without strictly fulfilling the requisites of Section 7(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, or any other personal law would entitle the woman to maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.?

So, this judgment is NOT a landmark judgment as the question of law was NOT decided either by this Court nor by a larger bench of this Court.


Citation: [2011 ANJ SC 1 26], [2010 AIOL 681], [2011 SCC 1 141], [2011 ALLMR CRI SC 346], [2010 SCALE 10 602], [2011 BOMCR SC 2 787], [2011 SCC CRI 2 666], [2011 CRLJ SC 96], [2010 RCR CIVIL SC 4 801], [2010 JT 11 132], [2010 AIR SC 6497], [2011 SCC CIV 1 53]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1949767/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609aedbe4b0149711414ea0


But this judgment declared it so here.


Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Chanmuniya Vs Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha and Anr CrPC 125 or BNSS 144 - Maintenance Granted CrPC 125 or BNSS 144 - No Strict Proof of Marriage Required CrPC 125 or BNSS 144 - Order for Maintenance of Wives Children and Parents Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Question of Law Involved Referred to Large Bench Reportable Judgement or Order | Leave a comment

Kamala and Others Vs M.R.Mohan Kumar on 24 October, 2018

Posted on November 30, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Hon’ble Supreme Court has held in this judgment that, as 125 CrPC proceedings are Summary in nature, no need of strict proof required for marriage between parties. It reiterated the law laid down in the judgment of Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha here.

Kamala and Others Vs M.R.Mohan Kumar on 24 October, 2018

 

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged CrPC 125 or BNSS 144 - Maintenance Granted CrPC 125 or BNSS 144 - No Strict Proof of Marriage Required CrPC 125 or BNSS 144 - Order for Maintenance of Wives Children and Parents Kamala and Others Vs M.R.Mohan Kumar | Leave a comment

Sidhappa Satappa Savali Vs Smt. Mahananda Sidhappa Savali on 08 December, 2015

Posted on November 30, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This is a judgment from Bombay High Court wherein it was held that, as 125 CrPC proceedings are Summary in nature, no need of strict proof required for marriage between parties.

Sidhappa Satappa Savali Vs Smt. Mahananda Sidhappa Savali on 08 December, 2015

 

Posted in High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged CrPC 125 or BNSS 144 - Maintenance Granted CrPC 125 or BNSS 144 - No Strict Proof of Marriage Required CrPC 125 or BNSS 144 - Order for Maintenance of Wives Children and Parents Sidhappa Satappa Savali Vs Smt. Mahananda Sidhappa Savali | Leave a comment

CrPC 125 Must Go From Statute Book. And Why?

Posted on November 30, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Here is a little detailed analysis on why CrPC 125 Must Go From Statute Book as discussed in here.

Let’s follow this approach on looking at what the General Law provides for and in superseding fashion, how these two Special Laws provide for same or better or faster or hassle-free reliefs to the same set of beneficiaries.

By default, these being gender-biased social welfare laws, in the guise of Article 15(3) of Constitution of India, the Perpetrator/Accused/Payer is generally, a male person.

The below information is split into below sub-headings for easy reference.

  1. Comparative analysis of provisions of 125 CrPC, PWDV Act, 2005 and MWPSC Act, 2007.
  2. Decisions of Hon’ble High Courts: Both favorable and unfavorable.
  3. Conclusion
  4. Prayers for Writ Petition (PIL)

 

Comparative analysis of provisions of 125 CrPC, PWDV Act, 2005 and MWPSC Act, 2007

  • Origins:

Section 125 CrPC: Came into force via Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on 25th January, 1974. During the prime minister-ship of Indira Gandhi (Indian National Congress)

Ceiling of Rs.500/- was removed and interim maintenance along with expenses of proceedings was brought in on 24th September, 2001. During the prime minister-ship of Atal Bihari Vajpayee (Bharatiya Janata Party)

Vs

The PWDV Act: Came into force via Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 on 13th September, 2005. During the prime minister-ship of Manmohan Singh (Indian National Congress)

The MWPSC Act: Came into force via Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 on 29th December, 2007. During the prime minister-ship of Manmohan Singh (Indian National Congress)

All details about prime minister ships is from this site here.

 

  • Jurisdiction:

Under 125 CrPC: Per Section 126(1), Proceedings under section 125 may be taken against any person in any district-

(a) where he is, or
(b) where he or his wife, resides, or
(c) where he last resided with his wife, or as the case may be, with the mother of the illegitimate child.

Vs

Under PWDV Act: Per Section 27(1), The court of Judicial Magistrate of the first class or the Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, within the local limits of which-
(a) the person aggrieved permanently or temporarily resides or carries on business or is employed; or
(b) the respondent resides or carries on business or is employed; or
(c) the cause of action has arisen,
shall be the competent court to grant a protection order and other orders under this Act and to try offences under this Act.

Under MWPSC Act: Per Section 6(1), The proceedings under section 5 may be taken against Jurisdiction and procedure any children or relative in any district-
a. where he resides or last resided; or
b. where children or relative resides.

 

  • Nature of Proceedings:

Under 125 CrPC: Summary proceedings – “a civil or criminal proceeding in the nature of a trial that is conducted without formalities (as indictment, pleadings, and usually a jury) for the speedy and peremptory disposition of a matter, meant to prevent vagrancy”

Vs

Under PWDV Act: Per Section 12(4), Generally, Regular proceedings, no skipping of procedures as in Summary Proceedings. But, Per Section 28(2), Nothing in sub-section (1) shall prevent the court from laying down its own procedure for disposal of an application under section 12 or under sub-section (2) of section 23. This would mean, Summary proceedings may be adopted by the Trial Court Magistrate in the interest of Objective mentioned in the Objects and Reasons.

Under MWPSC Act: Per Section 8(1), Summary proceedings – “a civil or criminal proceeding in the nature of a trial that is conducted without formalities (as indictment, pleadings, and usually a jury) for the speedy and peremptory disposition of a matter”.

 

  • Beneficiaries:

Under 125 CrPC: Per Section 125(1), Wife, Children and Parents are the beneficiaries, irrespective of caste, creed, religion.

Vs

Under PWDV Act: Wife and Children are the beneficiaries, irrespective of caste, creed, religion.

Under MWPSC Act: Parents (senior citizens, meaning over 60 years or otherwise) and grand parents are the beneficiaries, irrespective of caste, creed, religion.

 

  • Rights of Beneficiaries:

Under 125 CrPC: Even divorced women are entitled for maintenance, as per Section 125(1), Explanation (b) – “wife” includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried.

SC judgment to hold that Divorced folks are eligible beneficiaries of 125 CrPC here even when the husband is deserted by wife. Woww But just 1 year back from this SC order, Husband-deserting advocate-wife was denied maintenance by an innocent High Court of Madhya Pradesh going by the rule book, I meant the famous, 125 CrPC.

Also Judicially separated folks are also eligible beneficiaries per this judgement here.

And the walk-in types, I meant the live-in type are also eligible for the benefits per this P&H HC judgment here. This is a hilarious case. Read it for the kicks. Livelaw link here. More fun here, here and here.

 

Vs

Under PWDV Act: Even divorced women are entitled for maintenance, as per Section 2(f). See 2014 SC judgment here which is based on a technicality. Although P&H HC holds otherwise here. Also Delhi HC here.

One more, Ajay Kumar Reddy & Ors vs State Of Chhattisgarh & Anr CRMP 387 in 2016 (19.07.17).

Under MWPSC Act: Parents can kickoff careless and negligent children from any of their property. Recent judgment from Delhi HC here.

 

  • Initiating the proceedings:

Under 125 CrPC: File a MC case directly in Court.

Vs

Under PWDV Act: Per Section 4(1), Any person who has reason to believe that an act of domestic violence has been, or is being, or is likely to be committed, may give information about it to the concerned Protection Officer. Per Section 5, a complaint can be given to Protection Officer, police officer, Service Provider (Any NGO) or Magistrate dealing with DV Cases.

Under MWPSC Act: Per Section 5(1), An application for maintenance under section 4, may be made-
(a) by a senior citizen or a parent, as the case may be; or
(b) if he is incapable, by any other person or organization authorized by him; or
(c) the Tribunal may take cognizance suo motu.

 

  • Legal Contention (reason for filing the case):

Under 125 CrPC: Per Section 125(1), Wife, Children and Parents are subjected to willful neglect (=This is Domestic Violence in general and economic abuse, in particular) and those who are unable to maintain themselves.

Vs

Under PWDV Act: Per Section 3, Wife and Children are subjected to Domestic Violence (includes Physical, Sexual, Verbal & Emotional and Economic Abuse).

Under MWPSC Act: Per Section 4(1), Parents (and grand parents) are the unable to maintain themselves from their own earnings or out of the property owned by them.

 

  • Defendants/Respondents:

Under 125 CrPC: Per Section 125(1), A person who may have a wife, Children and Parents are the Defendants/Respondents.

PIL Point: Per Sec 8 of IPC, an inference can be made that a parent can seek maintenance from their daughter and a child from their mother. Landmark judgment from Hon’ble Supreme Court available here.

Vs

Under PWDV Act: Per Section 2(a) “any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and against whom the aggrieved person has sought any relief under this Act“.

E.g.: A Mother-in-law can also file Domestic Violence Case on a Daughter-in-law and claim appropriate benefits.

Under MWPSC Act: Per Section 4(1), “The proceedings can be taken against any children (including son, daughter, grand-son and grand-daughter) or relative (any legal heir of childless senior citizen)“.

 

  • Benefits/Reliefs:

Under 125 CrPC: Per Section 125(1)(d), Maintenance in cash.

Vs

Under PWDV Act: Per Sections 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22, Right to reside in a shared household, Protection from further domestic violence, Residence, Maintenance, Custody of kids and Compensation Orders.

Under MWPSC Act: Per Section 2(b), Monthly maintenance in cash to cater to provisions for food, clothing, residence and medical attendance and treatment.

 

  • Limitations on Reliefs (Maintenance amount):

Under 125 CrPC: No statutory limit imposed on the amount of maintenance granted, if granted.

Vs

Under PWDV Act: No statutory limit imposed on the amount of maintenance granted, if granted.

Under MWPSC Act: Per Section 9(2), Maximum monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- in cash. Can only claim maintenance under either this Act or under 125 CrPC, not under both. Read Section 12 of the Act.

 

  • Statutory Limitation on Time for Case Disposal:

Under 125 CrPC: No statutory limit imposed on the time taken to dispose of the case, even though it is a summary proceeding.

Vs

Under PWDV Act: Per Section 12(5), Statutory limit imposed on time taken to dispose of the case, which is 60 days.

Under MWPSC Act: Per Section 5(4), Statutory limit imposed on time taken to dispose of the case, which is 90 days.

 

  • Statutory Time for recovery:

Under 125 CrPC: Per Section 125(3), If any person so ordered fails without sufficient cause to comply with the order, any such Magistrate may, for every breach of the order, issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying fines, and may sentence such person, for the whole or any part of each month’ s allowances remaining unpaid after the execution of the warrant, to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or until payment if sooner made: Provided that no warrant shall be issued for the recovery of any amount due under this section unless application be made to the Court to levy such amount within a period of one year from the date on which it became due.

Vs

Under PWDV Act: None prescribed.

Under MWPSC Act: Per Section (5)8, If, children or relative so ordered fail, without sufficient cause to comply with the order, any such Tribunal may, for every breach of the order, issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying fines, and may sentence such person for the whole, or any part of month’s allowance for the maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case be, remaining unpaid after the execution of the warrant, to imprisonment for a team which may extend to one month or until payment if sooner made whichever is earlier: Provided that no warrant shall be issued for the recovery of any amount due under this section unless application be made to the Tribunal to levy such amount within period of three months from the date on which it become due.

 

  • Exceptions/Alterations/Cancellations:

Under 125 CrPC:

  1. Per Section 125(4), No Wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance from her husband under this section if she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent.
  2. Per Section 125(5), On proof that any wife in whose favour an order has been made under this section is living in adultery, or that without sufficient reason she refuses to live with her husband, or that they are living separately by mutual consent, the Magistrate shall cancel the order.

Also read Section 127 of CrPC.

Vs

Under PWDV Act:  Per Section 25(2), If the Magistrate, on receipt of an application from the aggrieved person or the respondent, is satisfied that there is a change in the circumstances requiring alteration, modification or revocation of any order made under this Act, he may, for reasons to be recorded in writing pass such order, as he may deem appropriate.

Under MWPSC Act: Per Section 10(1), On proof of misrepresentation or mistake of fact or a change in the circumstances of any person, receiving a monthly allowance under section 9, for the maintenance or ordered under that section to pay a monthly allowance for the maintenance, the Tribunal may make such alteration, as it thinks fit, in the allowance for the maintenance.

 

  • Appeal provisions on the Order of maintenance or dismissal thereof:

Under 125 CrPC: Per Section 125(5), On proof that any wife in whose favour an order has been made under this section is living in adultery, or that without sufficient reason she refuses to live with her husband, or that they are living separately by mutual consent, the Magistrate shall cancel the order.

Vs

Under PWDV Act: Per Section 29, Appeal.-There shall lie an appeal to the Court of Session within thirty days from the date on which the order made by the Magistrate is served on the aggrieved person or the respondent, as the case may be, whichever is later.

Under MWPSC Act: Per Section 16(1), Any senior citizen or a parent, as the case may be, aggrieved by an order of a
Tribunal may, within sixty days from the date of the order, prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal
Provided further that the Appellate Tribunal may, entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of sixty days, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal in time.

 

  • Impact of amendments made to provisions:

Under 125 CrPC: Ceiling of Rs.500/- was removed in Amendment to CrPC in 2001. Most possibly, this being one significant reason, the volume of 125 CrPC case may have risen.

Vs

Under PWDV Act: No Amendment till date.

Under MWPSC Act: No Amendment till date.

 

  • Conflicts with other Laws allowing Double Jeopardy to happen:

Under 125 CrPC: Since it is a general law, superseded by PWDV Act and MWPSC Act, this set of sections 125-128 should be struck down and provisions allowing for dual reliefs in special laws should be altered appropriately.

Vs

Under PWDV Act:

Per Section 26,

(1) Any relief available under sections 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 may also be sought in any legal proceeding, before a civil court, family court or a criminal court, affecting the aggrieved person and the respondent whether such proceeding was initiated before or after the commencement of this Act.
(2) Any relief referred to in sub-section (1) may be sought for in addition to and along with any other relief that the aggrieved person may seek in such suit or legal proceeding before a civil or criminal court.
(3) In case any relief has been obtained by the aggrieved person in any proceedings other than a proceeding under this Act, she shall be bound to inform the Magistrate of the grant of such relief.

Per Section 36, Act not in derogation of any other law.-The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law, for the time being in force.

Under MWPSC Act: Per Section 3, The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any enactment other than this Act, or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any enactment other than this Act.

 

  • Imposition of Costs:

Under 125 CrPC: Per Section 126(3), The Court in dealing with applications under section 125 shall have power to make such order as to costs as may be just.

Vs

Under PWDV Act: Per Section 28(2), Nothing in sub-section (1) shall prevent the court from laying down its own procedure for disposal of an application under section 12 or under sub-section (2) of section 23.

Under MWPSC Act: None prescribed.

 

  • Availability of Interim Reliefs

Under 125 CrPC: Even though, no where in Sections 125-128 CrPC, a provision for Interim maintenance is mandated, Various Courts held that Interim orders are maintainable.

Vs

Under PWDV Act: Per Section 23(1), In any proceeding before him under this Act, the Magistrate may pass such interim order as he deems just and proper.

Under MWPSC Act: Per Section 5(2), The Tribunal may, during the pendency of the proceeding regarding monthly allowance for the maintenance under this section, order such children or relative to make a monthly allowance for the interim maintenance of such senior citizen including parent is to pay the same to such senior citizen including parent as the Tribunal may from time to time direct.

 

  • Statutory effective date of maintenance order:

Under 125 CrPC: Per Section 125(2), Such allowance shall be payable from the date of the order, or, if so ordered, from the date of the application for maintenance.

Vs

Under PWDV Act: No such effective date of maintenance prescribed.

Under MWPSC Act: Per Section 7, Any such allowance for the maintenance and expenses for proceeding shall be payable from the date of the order, or, if so ordered, from the date of the application for maintenance or expenses of proceeding, as the case may be.

 

  • Strict proof of Prima Facie evidence before obtaining Interim Reliefs

Under 125 CrPC: No strict proof required as it is a Summary proceeding in nature. Bombay High Court ruling here and new article here, Supreme Court held the same in these two judgments: Landmark Judgment of 2010 here and a recent judgment from 2018 here.

Vs

Under PWDV Act: Per Section 23(1), In any proceeding before him under this Act, the Magistrate may pass such interim order as he deems just and proper.

Under MWPSC Act: None Prescribed.

 

  • Obtaining Ex Parte Orders

Under 125 CrPC: Per Section 126(2), Provided that if the Magistrate is satisfied that the person against whom an order for payment of maintenance is proposed to be made is wilfully avoiding service, or wilfully neglecting to attend the Court, the Magistrate may proceed to hear and determine the case ex parte and any order so made may be set aside for good cause shown on an application made within three months from the date thereof subject to such terms including terms at to payment of costs to the opposite party as the Magistrate may think just and proper.

Vs

Under PWDV Act: Per Section 23(2), If the Magistrate is satisfied that an application prima facie discloses that the respondent is committing, or has committed an act of domestic violence or that there is a likelihood that the respondent may commit an act of domestic violence, he may grant an ex parte order on the basis of the affidavit in such form, as may be prescribed, of the aggrieved person under section 18, section 19, section 20, section 21 or, as the case may be, section 22 against the respondent.

Under MWPSC Act: Per Section 6(4), Provided that if the Tribunal is satisfied that the children or relative against whom an order for payment of maintenance is proposed to be made is willfully avoiding service, or willfully neglecting to attend the Tribunal, the Tribunal may proceed to hear and determine the case ex parte.

 

  • Efforts to be taken to get maintenance orders executed, upon failure of payment

Under 125 CrPC: Per Section 128, A copy of the order of maintenance shall be given without payment to the person in whose favour it is made, or to his guardian, if any or to the person to whom the allowance is to be paid; and such order may be enforced by any Magistrate in any place where the person against whom it is made may be, on such Magistrate being satisfied as to the identity of the parties and the non- payment of the allowance due.

Vs

Under PWDV Act: Per Section 9(h),Duties and functions of Protection Officers.-(1) It shall be the duty of the Protection Officer-. to ensure that the order for monetary relief under section 20 is complied with and executed, in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974);

Per Section 20(1)(d), Monetary reliefs: (1) While disposing of an application under sub-section (1) of section 12, the Magistrate may direct the respondent to pay monetary relief to meet the expenses incurred and losses suffered by the aggrieved person and any child of the aggrieved person as a result of the domestic violence and such relief may include, but not limited to,- the maintenance for the aggrieved person as well as her children, if any, including an order under or in addition to an order of maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force.

Per Section 20(6), Monetary reliefs: Upon the failure on the part of the respondent to make payment in terms of the order under sub-section (1), the Magistrate may direct the employer or a debtor of the respondent, to directly pay to the aggrieved person or to deposit with the court a portion of the wages or salaries or debt due to or accrued to the credit of the respondent, which amount may be adjusted towards the monetary relief payable by the respondent.

Under MWPSC Act: Per Section 11(2), A maintenance order made under this Act shall have the same force and effect as an order passed under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and shall be executed in the manner prescribed for the execution of such order by that Code.

 

  • Provision for penal punishment on failure to pay maintenance

Under 125 CrPC: Per Section 125(3), If any person so ordered fails without sufficient cause to comply with the order, any such Magistrate may, for every breach of the order, issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying fines, and may sentence such person, for the whole or any part of each month’ s allowances remaining unpaid after the execution of the warrant, to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or until payment if sooner made: Provided that no warrant shall be issued for the recovery of any amount due under this section unless application be made to the Court to levy such amount within a period of one year from the date on which it became due: Provided further that if such person offers to maintain his wife on condition of her living with him, and she refuses to live with him, such Magistrate may consider any grounds of refusal stated by her, and may make an order under this section notwithstanding such offer, if he is satisfied that there is just ground for so doing. Explanation.- If a husband has contracted marriage with another woman or keeps a mistress, it shall be considered to be just ground for his wife’ s refusal to live with him.

Per Section 421: Warrant for levy of fine

(1) When an offender has been sentenced to pay a fine, the Court passing the sentence may take action for the recovery of the fine in either or both of the following ways, that is to say, it may-

(a) issue a warrant for the levy of the amount by attachment and sale of any movable property belonging to the offender;
(b) issue a warrant to the Collector of the district, authorising him to realise the amount as arrears of land revenue from the movable or immovable property, or both, of the defaulter: Provided that, if the sentence directs that in default of payment of the fine, the offender shall be imprisoned, and if such offender has undergone the whole of such imprisonment in default, no Court shall issue such warrant unless, for special reasons to be recorded in writing, it considers it necessary so to do, or unless it has made an order for the payment of expenses or compensation out of the fine under section 357.

 

Some landmark judgments by Hon’ble High Courts of Patna and Bombay

  • Laljee Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar on 16 September, 2011
  • Sachin Vs Sau. Sushma on 6 May, 2014

Vs

Under PWDV Act: Per Section 9(1)(h), Duties and functions of Protection Officers.-(1) It shall be the duty of the Protection Officer-. to ensure that the order for monetary relief under section 20 is complied with and executed, in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974);

Under MWPSC Act: Per Section (5)8, If, children or relative so ordered fail, without sufficient cause to comply with the order, any such Tribunal may, for every breach of the order, issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying fines, and may sentence such person for the whole, or any part of month’s allowance for the maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case be, remaining unpaid after the execution of the warrant, to imprisonment for a team which may extend to one month or until payment if sooner made whichever is earlier: Provided that no warrant shall be issued for the recovery of any amount due under this section unless application be made to the Tribunal to levy such amount within period of three months from the date on which it become due.

 

  • Relief available when all available remedies are exhaused:

Under 125 CrPC: Statutory limit imposed on time taken to dispose of the case, which is 60 days. Read 2001 Amendment to CrPC here.

Vs

Under PWDV Act: Per Section 12(5), Statutory limit imposed on time taken to dispose of the case, which is 60 days.

Under MWPSC Act: Per Section 16(6), appeal to be disposed off in 1 month from date of receiving appeal.

 

  • Objects and Reasons

Under 125 CrPC: None.

Vs

Under PWDV Act: Presently, where a woman is subjected to cruelty by her husband or his relatives, it is an offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The civil law does not, however, address this phenomenon in its entirety. It is, therefore, proposed to enact a law keeping in view the rights guaranteed under articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution to provide for a remedy under the civil law which is intended to protect woman from being victims of domestic violence and to prevent the occurrence of domestic violence in the society. The Act seeks to achieve the said object.

Under MWPSC Act: Though the parents can claim maintenance under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the procedure is time-consuming as well as expensive. Hence, there is a need to have simple, inexpensive and speedy provisions to claim maintenance for parents.

 

Decisions of Hon’ble High Courts: Both favorable and unfavorable

Hon’ble High Courts of various States have held favorably that…

Madras High Court:

In a recent judgment, Hon’ble Shri M.S.Ramesh of Madras High Court has reiterated that “The petitioner herein having chosen to invoke the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act seeking for monetary relief under Section 20(3), cannot subsequently invoke Section 125 Cr.P.C., for maintenance on the same set of facts and cause of action in view of my reasonings given above.” The sequence of cases are first DV case and then 125 CrPC on exact same allegations on past and Hon’ble Judge showed the door to the false complainant. The judgment is available here.

Another wonderful judgment here from same Hon’ble Madras High Court from Justice Shri S.Nagamuthu was the landmark judgment referred in above 2018 judgment. In this case, the sequence of cases are first 125 CrPC and then DV case on exact same allegations on past and Hon’ble Judge showed the door to the false complainant.

Bombay High Court:

Based on above landmark judgment, Hon’ble Bombay High Court also issued a very good order here recently in 2018.

Another judgment from 2018 here, talks about adjusting the maintenance amount in 125 CrPC with that of granted in DVC.

The Recent April 25, 2019 judgment here clearly says, “Once Divorce Is Granted, Relief Can’t Be Sought Under Domestic Violence Act” which in absolutely certain terms says, that divorced women cannot invoke DV proceedings and the domestic relationship ceases to exists post divorce and hence, as a corollary, remedy available for such divorced women for maintenance is ONLY under 125 CrPC.

Gujarat High Court: Even Gujarat High Court, in 2015, talks about adjustment between multiple maintenance orders, if granted. Read it here.

Delhi High Court:

Shri Justice Shiv Narayan Dhingra, has delivered these judgments in 2010,

  1. https://www.shadesofknife.in/harbans-lal-malik-vs-payal-malik-on-29-july-2010/
  2. https://www.shadesofknife.in/renu-mittal-vs-anil-mittal-and-others-on-27-september-2010/
  3. https://www.shadesofknife.in/rachna-kathuria-vs-ramesh-kathuria-on-30-august-2010/
    1. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/113760308/

 

Some vexed up Brave hearts have fought back against unfavorable Judgments

  1. https://www.livelaw.in/husband-follow-maintenance-orders-crpc-domestic-violence-act-sc-issues-notice-read-order/
    1. https://www.livelaw.in/order-maintenance-awarded-domestic-violence-act-cannot-substituted-maintenance-s-125-crpc-read-judgment/
  2. If Wife sits idle, after resigning from work without reason, just before filing false maintenance complaint, it is fine. But husband if seeks maintenance (of course under S 24 of HMAct) from working wife (only after he is able to prove any incapability or handicap), the Court observed that in absence of such circumstances as enumerated above, endowing maintenance on the husband would only promote idleness.
    1. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/177540678/
  3. Woman tried to ascribe domestic relationship to already married man: https://www.shadesofknife.in/gautam-jairam-gawai-vs-ragini-gautam-gawai-anr-on-20-january-2017/
  4. Both proceedings of maintenance under 125 CrPC and PWDV Act are maintainable:
    1. https://www.shadesofknife.in/poonam-vs-v-p-sharma-on-25-february-2014/
    2. https://www.shadesofknife.in/ramu-singh-tomar-ano-v-smt-bhuri-bai-on-15-february-2017/
    3. https://www.shadesofknife.in/tanushree-ors-vs-a-s-moorthy-on-7-february-2018/

 

The below are the victims who were saddled with maintenance under more than one laws.

  1. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/127433736/
    1. Sec 125 CrPC allowed by order on 23.01.2017
    2. Sec 23 of PWDV Act application dismissed by order on 06.04.2018

 

Conclusion

These judgments seem to be hinting at, for first-ever offence of husband of Domestic Violence (without a doubt, neglect and non-maintenance under 125 CrPC, is a violence under PWDV Act too), the ladies (married and later statuses) of India can choose 125 CrPC as their go-to law to extort monies from the husband, they don’t want to live with and for every new and subsequent act of domestic violence, it is the application under PWDV Act that they should file, for speedy disposal/dole outs, allegedly under 60 days per section 12(5) of PWDV Act.

Truly, Ingenious way of making and implementing beneficial laws in my motherland, India.

 

Prayers for the Writ petition (PIL)

In addition to 125 CrPC (along with 126, 127 & 128 CrPC), the sections 20(1)(d) and 36 of PWDV Act are to be stuck down, as they are the ones supporting/enabling/causing Double Jeopardy to happen via PWDV Act, in colluded collaboration with 125 CrPC.

It is not rocket science to understand why the legislators on that time in 2005 did what they did. The PWDV Act, when brought in, was catering to only 2 of the beneficiaries of 125 CrPC, namely Wife and Children. Obviously, no one can foresee that in 2007, MWPSC Act will be brought in. As such, Parents are still to depend on 125 CrPC for their maintenance as on 2005.

But when the MWPSC Act was brought in 2007, the above shortcoming was fulfilled and all beneficiaries of 125 CrPC (Various stautses of Wife, Parents and Children) were gainfully and sufficiently covered under the both laws PWDV Act + MWPSC Act, put together.

Thereby, making 125 CrPC a vestige that has to be hacked off from the CrPC Statute book. Once 125 CrPC and its related sections are stuck down as infructuous, there would be no confusion among the masses as well as the judicial officers on order from which law should be followed or both to be followed etcetera.


More references:

  1. https://tilakmarg.com/opinion/what-happens-to-pending-corruption-cases-under-section-131d-of-pc-act-after-its-repeal-in-2018-amendment/
  2. https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-ab&q=intelligible+differntia
  3. https://mynation.net/docs/judgments/
  4. http://vaastav.org/judgements/divorce/
  5. https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-ab&q=forum+shopping

Thoroughly detailed post is available here, which includes corrections and additions to above points, that will feed into the Public Interest Litigation (Writ Petition at High Court of Andhra Pradesh), that I am going to file, at appropriate time in 2019.

The prayers section of the PIL is available here.


 

Posted in Judicial Activism (for Public Benefit) | Tagged CrPC 125 or BNSS 144 - Order for Maintenance of Wives Children and Parents CrPC 126 - Procedure CrPC 127 - Alteration in allowance CrPC 128 - Enforcement of Order of Maintenance Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007 PIL - CrPC 125 or BNSS 144 Must Go From Statute Book Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 | 2 Comments

M.Shasheena Vs M.Anwar on 21 June, 2017

Posted on November 28, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Interesting case. Lot of twists and turns. At the end, the lying knife gets empty bowl.

M.Shasheena Vs M.Anwar on 21 June, 2017

[related_posts_by_tax title=”5 Recently Updated Posts, Similar or Related To Above Post” orderby=”post_modified” posts_per_page=”5″ show_date=”true”]

Posted in Chittor DV Cases | Tagged Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to M.Shasheena Vs M.Anwar Muslim DV Case PWDV Act - Dismissed On Merits | Leave a comment

K.Pooja Sri Vs D.Babu on 13 June, 2017

Posted on November 28, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Territorial jurisdiction is adjudicated in this order.

K.Pooja Sri Vs D.Babu on 13 June, 2017

[related_posts_by_tax title=”5 Recently Updated Posts, Similar or Related To Above Post” orderby=”post_modified” posts_per_page=”5″ show_date=”true”]

Posted in Chittor DV Cases | Tagged K.Pooja Sri Vs D.Babu PWDV Act 20 - Maintenance Granted PWDV Act Sec 27 - Territorial Jurisdiction | Leave a comment

R.Jyothi Vs K.Chandra Babu on 03 November, 2017

Posted on November 28, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Read a nice story in this case.

No reliefs from other respondents as none were requested in the petition.

There is no relief order against respondents 2 to 5 as the petitioner did not asked any relief from respondents 2 to 5.

R.Jyothi Vs K.Chandra Babu on 03 November, 2017

[related_posts_by_tax title=”5 Recently Updated Posts, Similar or Related To Above Post” orderby=”post_modified” posts_per_page=”5″ show_date=”true”]

Posted in Chittor DV Cases | Tagged Ex Parte Order PWDV Act 20 - Maintenance Granted PWDV Act Sec 19 - Residential Order (Rent) Granted R.Jyothi Vs K.Chandra Babu | Leave a comment

T.V.Vyshnavi Vs N.Govindaraj on 12 January, 2017

Posted on November 28, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

A new story to be heard in this ex parte order. Protection, Maintenance and Compensation orders are granted.

T.V.Vyshnavi Vs N.Govindaraj on 12 January, 2017

[related_posts_by_tax title=”5 Recently Updated Posts, Similar or Related To Above Post” orderby=”post_modified” posts_per_page=”5″ show_date=”true”]

Posted in Chittor DV Cases | Tagged Ex Parte Order PWDV Act 18 - Protection Order Granted PWDV Act 20 - Maintenance Granted PWDV Act 22 - Compensation Granted T.V.Vyshnavi Vs N.Govindaraj | Leave a comment

T.Sujatha Vs P.Mahendra on 21 September, 2017

Posted on November 28, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

The order reads like this in this Dismissed for Default DVC.

Conditions not complied, though petitioner availing sufficient time not proceed with case. Hence DVC is dismissed for default.

T.Sujatha Vs P.Mahendra on 21 September, 2017

 

Posted in Chittor DV Cases | Tagged PWDV Act - Dismissed As Default T.Sujatha Vs P.Mahendra | Leave a comment

A.Sandhya Vs P.Rajesh on 8 December, 2017

Posted on November 28, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

A new story in this DVC. Read it.

A.Sandhya Vs P.Rajesh on 8 December, 2017

 

Posted in Chittor DV Cases | Tagged A.Sandhya Vs P.Rajesh PWDV Act 18 - Protection Order Granted PWDV Act 22 - Compensation Denied PWDV Act Sec 19 - Residential Order (Share in Property) Granted | Leave a comment

Post navigation

  • Older posts

Search within entire Content of “Shades of Knife”

My Legal X Timeline

Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Follow

AP High Court Advocate with M Tech (CS) || 12 years in 'Software Industry' as Solution Architect || Blogs at https://t.co/29CB9BzK4w || #TDPTwitter

SandeepPamarati
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
kamleshksingh ᴋᴀᴍʟᴇsʜ sɪɴɢʜ / tau @kamleshksingh ·
17 May

“Pakistanis are brilliant people. They make incredible products”

What exactly?

Reply on Twitter 1923714380945912306 Retweet on Twitter 1923714380945912306 2067 Like on Twitter 1923714380945912306 12111 X 1923714380945912306
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
thebetterindia The Better India @thebetterindia ·
16 May

They didn’t wear uniforms, but they wore courage on their paws.

They sniffed out bombs, charged into flames, shielded their handlers, and gave everything they had—without hesitation.

Here are 8 of India’s bravest Army Dogs, who fought for the nation in silence… and became…

Reply on Twitter 1923340953995096137 Retweet on Twitter 1923340953995096137 570 Like on Twitter 1923340953995096137 3571 X 1923340953995096137
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
raviprabhu Ravi Prabhu @raviprabhu ·
17 May

First person from Andhra Pradesh to travel to every country in the world and such an honor to have met and secured the blessings of the chief Minister of my home state Andhra Pradesh @ncbn Shri Chandra Babu Naidu

#AndhraPradesh #ChandrababuNaidu #NaraLokesh #CBN #vizag

Reply on Twitter 1923658768493023404 Retweet on Twitter 1923658768493023404 68 Like on Twitter 1923658768493023404 725 X 1923658768493023404
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
eliafriatisr Eli Afriat 🇮🇱🎗 @eliafriatisr ·
16 May

Do you support this man? 🇮🇱
Yes or no?

Reply on Twitter 1923347709249114521 Retweet on Twitter 1923347709249114521 3204 Like on Twitter 1923347709249114521 41433 X 1923347709249114521
Load More

Recent Posts

  • Shivendra Pratap Singh Thakur Vs State of Chhattisgarh and Ors on 15 May 2024 May 13, 2025
  • Gurram Sitaramaiah Vs Gurram Siva Parvathi and Ors on 08 Jan 2024 May 3, 2025
  • Akkala Rami Reddy Vs State of AP and Anr on 30 Apr 2025 May 1, 2025
  • Saikat Das Vs State of West Bengal and Anr on 27 Mar 2025 April 18, 2025
  • Sanjay Kumar Shaw Vs Anjali Kumari Shaw on 07 Apr 2025 April 18, 2025

Most Read Posts

  • Vishal Shah Vs Monalisha Gupta and Ors on 20 Feb 2025 (2,098 views)
  • Mudireddy Divya Vs Sulkti Sivarama Reddy on 26 Mar 2025 (1,380 views)
  • Sukhdev Singh Vs Sukhbir Kaur on 12 Feb 2025 (1,364 views)
  • Madan Kumar Satpathy Vs Priyadarshini Pati on 07 Feb 2025 (1,243 views)
  • Megha Khetrapal Vs Rajat Kapoor on 19 Mar 2025 (905 views)
  • Ivan Rathinam Vs Milan Joseph on 28 Jan 2025 (797 views)
  • Om Prakash Ambadkar Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors on 16 Jan 2025 (797 views)
  • Sandeep Bhavan Pamarati Vs State of AP on 13 Nov 2024 (722 views)
  • State of AP Vs Basa Nalini Manohar and Ors on 23 Dec 2024 (673 views)
  • Geetababi Khambra Vs State of MP and Anr on 9 Jan 2024 (637 views)

Tags

Reportable Judgement or Order (398)2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision (369)Landmark Case (366)Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes (365)1-Judge Bench Decision (288)Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to (270)Work-In-Progress Article (217)3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision (96)Sandeep Pamarati (92)Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty (77)Issued or Recommended Guidelines or Directions or Protocols to be followed (68)Perjury Under 340 CrPC (59)Absurd Or After Thought Or Baseless Or False Or General Or Inherently Improbable Or Improved Or UnSpecific Or Omnibus Or Vague Allegations (58)Reprimands or Setbacks to YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh (49)Summary Post (43)HM Act 13 - Divorce Granted to Husband (42)Not Authentic copy hence to be replaced (40)CrPC 482 - Quash (39)Divorce granted on Cruelty ground (37)Advocate Antics (36)

Categories

Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification (711)Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments (318)High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (177)High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification (141)High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification (105)High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification (86)High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification (65)General Study Material (55)High Court of Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification (50)High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification (50)Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications (49)Prakasam DV Cases (46)LLB Study Material (46)District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification (43)Judicial Activism (for Public Benefit) (42)High Court of Kerala Judgment or Order or Notification (39)High Court of Madhya Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (35)High Court of Gujarat Judgment or Order or Notification (27)High Court of Telangana Judgment or Order or Notification (26)High Court of Calcutta Judgment or Order or Notification (23)

Recent Comments

  • Risha Bhatnagar on Pitchika Lakshmi Vs Pichika Chenna Mallikaharjuana Rao on 24 Dec 2012
  • ShadesOfKnife on Index of all Summary Case Law Pages on Shades of Knife
  • kanwal Kishore Girdhar on Index of all Summary Case Law Pages on Shades of Knife
  • SUBHASH KUMAR BANSAL on Sukhdev Singh Vs Sukhbir Kaur on 12 Feb 2025
  • ShadesOfKnife on Syed Nazim Husain Vs Additional Principal Judge Family Court & Anr on 9 January, 2003

Archives of SoK

  • May 2025 (3)
  • April 2025 (10)
  • March 2025 (7)
  • February 2025 (8)
  • January 2025 (1)
  • December 2024 (3)
  • November 2024 (4)
  • October 2024 (16)
  • September 2024 (15)
  • August 2024 (14)
  • July 2024 (11)
  • June 2024 (18)
  • May 2024 (13)
  • April 2024 (9)
  • March 2024 (23)
  • February 2024 (15)
  • January 2024 (11)
  • December 2023 (11)
  • November 2023 (9)
  • October 2023 (13)
  • September 2023 (12)
  • August 2023 (15)
  • July 2023 (17)
  • June 2023 (11)
  • May 2023 (6)
  • April 2023 (5)
  • March 2023 (10)
  • February 2023 (9)
  • January 2023 (12)
  • December 2022 (12)
  • November 2022 (8)
  • October 2022 (13)
  • September 2022 (17)
  • August 2022 (10)
  • July 2022 (21)
  • June 2022 (27)
  • May 2022 (23)
  • April 2022 (32)
  • March 2022 (17)
  • February 2022 (6)
  • January 2022 (2)
  • December 2021 (7)
  • November 2021 (7)
  • October 2021 (6)
  • September 2021 (10)
  • August 2021 (31)
  • July 2021 (45)
  • June 2021 (17)
  • May 2021 (17)
  • April 2021 (18)
  • March 2021 (58)
  • February 2021 (14)
  • January 2021 (50)
  • December 2020 (35)
  • November 2020 (68)
  • October 2020 (67)
  • September 2020 (28)
  • August 2020 (41)
  • July 2020 (20)
  • June 2020 (36)
  • May 2020 (40)
  • April 2020 (38)
  • March 2020 (26)
  • February 2020 (43)
  • January 2020 (35)
  • December 2019 (34)
  • November 2019 (4)
  • October 2019 (18)
  • September 2019 (57)
  • August 2019 (33)
  • July 2019 (12)
  • June 2019 (18)
  • May 2019 (5)
  • April 2019 (19)
  • March 2019 (58)
  • February 2019 (11)
  • January 2019 (90)
  • December 2018 (97)
  • November 2018 (43)
  • October 2018 (31)
  • September 2018 (73)
  • August 2018 (47)
  • July 2018 (143)
  • June 2018 (92)
  • May 2018 (97)
  • April 2018 (59)
  • March 2018 (8)

Blogroll

  • Daaman Promoting Harmony 0
  • Fight against Legal Terrorism Fight against Legal Terrorism along with MyNation Foundation 0
  • Good Morning Good Morning News 0
  • Insaaf India Insaaf Awareness Movement 0
  • MyNation Hope Foundation Wiki 0
  • MyNation.net Equality, Justice and Harmony 0
  • Sarvepalli Legal 0
  • Save Indian Family Save Indian Family Movement 0
  • SIF Chandigarh SIF Chandigarh 0
  • The Male Factor The Male Factor 0
  • Unitedmen Foundation a dedicated community forged with the mission to unite men facing legal challenges in marital disputes. 0
  • Vaastav Foundation The Social Reality 0
  • Vinayak my2centsworth – This blog is for honest law abiding men, married or planning to get married 0
  • Voice4india Indian Laws, Non-profits, Environment 0
  • Writing Law Writing Law by Ankur 0

RSS Cloudflare Status

  • ULN (Ulaanbaatar) on 2025-06-04 June 4, 2025
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Jun 4, 18:00 - 22:00 UTCMay 13, 01:00 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in ULN (Ulaanbaatar) datacenter on 2025-06-04 between 18:00 and 22:00 UTC.Traffic might be re-routed from this location, hence there is a possibility of a slight increase in latency during this maintenance window for end-users […]
  • ULN (Ulaanbaatar) on 2025-06-04 June 4, 2025
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Jun 4, 18:00 - 22:00 UTCMay 13, 00:00 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in ULN (Ulaanbaatar) datacenter on 2025-06-04 between 18:00 and 22:00 UTC.Traffic might be re-routed from this location, hence there is a possibility of a slight increase in latency during this maintenance window for end-users […]
  • KHH (Kaohsiung City) on 2025-06-04 June 4, 2025
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Jun 4, 18:00 - 22:00 UTCMay 12, 23:36 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in KHH (Kaohsiung City) datacenter on 2025-06-04 between 18:00 and 22:00 UTC.Traffic might be re-routed from this location, hence there is a possibility of a slight increase in latency during this maintenance window for […]

RSS List of Spam Server IPs from Project Honeypot

  • 95.54.159.41 | SD May 18, 2025
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 45 | First: 2015-04-19 | Last: 2025-05-18
  • 103.58.71.71 | S May 18, 2025
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 1,093 | First: 2015-10-26 | Last: 2025-05-18
  • 83.229.68.199 | SD May 18, 2025
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 519 | First: 2025-05-13 | Last: 2025-05-18
Owned and Operated by Advocate Sandeep Pamarati
Proudly powered by WordPress
Theme: Flint by Star Verte LLC

Bad Behavior has blocked 7803 access attempts in the last 7 days.

pixel