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: April 2021

Varshaben Himantlal Vejani Vs State of Gujarat on 15 Jul 2016

Posted on April 13 by ShadesOfKnife

Taking input from Kerala HC judgment here, Gujarat High Court held that, any agreement which has terms against to Public Policy, is void and not enforceable in law. Such agreements which prohibit right of maintenance are also void.

From Para 9,

9 In any case, all such issues are now well settled by few decisions of different Courts

[1] Rajesh R Nair v. Meera Babu reported in 2013 Cri. L.J. 3153, wherein Division Bench of Kerala High Court has held that waiver of right to maintenance by an agreement is not permissible because such agreement would be void agreement as against public policy. It would amount to ousting of jurisdiction of Magistrate and Family Court to entertain maintenance claim which cannot be permitted by law. Therefore, such agreement being void would be unenforceable and hence claim for maintenance cannot be rejected on the basis of such agreement of waiver of right to maintenance.
[2] In Rishikesh Singh alias T.R. Singh v. Kiran Gautam reported in 2015 Cri.L.J. 126, Chhattisgarh High Court has confirmed that decree of divorce obtained by mutual consent would be no ground to deny maintenance until wife has not remarried after divorce. It is further held that even if wife is junior advocate, it cannot be held that she is able to maintain herself and, therefore, she would be entitled for the maintenance.
[3] Smt. Vanamala v. H.M. Ranganatha Bhatta reported in [1995] 5 SCC 299, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has also taken the same view that wife, who obtains divorce by mutual consent cannot be denied maintenance by virtue of section 125[4] and thereby restored the order of the Sessions Court, which has concluded that wife was entitled to maintenance notwithstanding divorce by mutual consent and remanded the matter to the trial Court for determining quantum of maintenance. Thereby, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has set aside the order of the High Court which held that wife is not entitled to maintenance once she has divorced her marriage by mutual consent. It would be appropriate to recollect here that for coming to such conclusion, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has relied upon as many as three other decisions of different High Courts, which are quoted in such reported case and approved by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore, as on date, there are at least as many as five judgments including judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, which confirm that a wife who obtains divorce by mutual consent cannot be denied maintenance by virtue of section 125 [4] of the Cr. P.C.

Varshaben Himantlal Vejani Vs State of Gujarat on 15 Jul 2016

Citations : [2016 SCC ONLINE GUJ 9136], [2017 AIC 172 524]

Other Sources:

https://mynation.net/docs/1095-2011/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5ac5e33e4a93261a1a744803

Posted in High Court of Gujarat Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision Against Public Policy Catena of Landmark Judgments CrPC 125(4) - No Maintenance or Interim To Adulterer or Deserter Wife Reportable Judgement or Order Varshaben Himantlal Vejani Vs State of Gujarat | Leave a comment

Rajesh R. Nair Vs Meera Babu on 5 Mar 2013

Posted on April 13 by ShadesOfKnife

A Division bench of Kerala High Court held that, a wife who is living separately by mutual consent, is not entitled to receive maintenance or Interim maintenance.

From Para 10,

Now, the question arises for consideration is whether the respondent is entitled to receive maintenance or interim maintenance from the petitioner after they have been living separately by mutual consent i.e., from 30.4.2011 onwards.

Going by the above sub-section, no wife is entitled to receive maintenance from her husband if they are living separately by mutual consent. Here, the petitioner and the respondent have been living separately since 30.4.2011. Therefore, Exts.P1 and P2 claims for maintenance and interim maintenance respectively filed by the respondent are hit by sub-section (4) of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. In other words, Exts.P1 and P2 claims are not maintainable. Hence, Ext.P11 common order passed by the Family Court is liable to be set aside. Ext.P1 claim for maintenance is liable to be quashed.

Rajesh R. Nair Vs Meera Babu on 5 Mar 2013

Citations : [2013 SCC ONLINE KER 24120], [2013 CRI LJ 3153], [2013 AIC 125 705], [2013 KLT 1 899], [2014 RCR CRI 1 411], [2014 CCC 1 99]

Other Sources:

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5ac5e4694a93261aa7929df4

https://www.legitquest.com/case/rajesh-r-nair-v-meera-babu/197C65

Posted in High Court of Kerala Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision CrPC 125(4) - No Maintenance To Adulterer or Deserter Wife Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Rajesh R. Nair Vs Meera Babu Reportable Judgement or Order | Leave a comment

Bhima Razu Prasad Vs State of Tamil Nadu on 12 Mar 2021

Posted on April 6 by ShadesOfKnife

Referring to a catena of case laws, Division bench of SC said the following:

From Para 5,

It is well settled that Section 195(1)(b) creates a bar against taking cognizance of offences against the administration of justice for the purpose of guarding against baseless or vindictive prosecutions by private parties. The provisions of this Section imply that the Court is the only appropriate authority which is entitled to raise grievance in relation to perjury, forgery of documents produced before the Court, and other offences which interfere with the effective dispensation of justice by the Court. Hence, it for the Court to exercise its discretion and consider the suitability of making a complaint for such offences. However, there is a pertinent difference in the wording of Section 195(1)(b) (i) and Section 195(1)(b)(ii) inasmuch as Section 195(1)(b)(ii) is restricted to offences which are committed in respect of a document which is “produced or given in evidence in a proceeding in any court”. Whereas Section 195(1)(b)(i) applies to offences against public justice which are committed not only in any proceeding in any court, but also “in relation to” such proceeding. Whether such semantical difference bars the analogous application of precedents relating to Section 195(1)(b)(ii) for interpreting Section 195(1)(b)(i) will be discussed by us later.

From Para 8,

Curiously, though the facts of Iqbal Singh Marwah also required a determination as to the applicability of Section 195(1)(b)(i), the Constitution Bench did not express any specific finding on this point. This was perhaps because the limited point for consideration before the Bench was the apparent conflict between Sachida Nand Singh and Surjit Singh (supra). However, it can nevertheless be seen that the Constitution Bench did not interpret Section 195(1)(b)(ii) in isolation, but linked its construction with the overall scheme under Sections 195(1)(b) and 340, CrPC. The Court reiterated the test laid down in Sachida Nand Singh, i.e., that the offence in respect of which only the Court can make a complaint must be one which has a direct correlation to, or a direct impact on, proceedings before a court of justice. It is for this reason that only the relevant Court is vested with the right to consider the desirability of complaining against the guilty party.

From Para 17 (Very important)

17. It is possible that Courts may be more proactive in making complaints under Section 195(1)(b)(i), CrPC upon application made by the concerned investigative agencies, than in those preferred by private parties. The former being public authorities would enjoy more credence in seeking inquiry into their claims.Therefore, the aforementioned reasons assigned by the Constitution Bench in Iqbal Singh Marwah for adopting a narrow construction of Section 195(1)(b)(ii), CrPC may not be strictly applicable in the present case. However, the general principles of statutory interpretation laid down by the Constitution Bench should not be disregarded. This is especially given that the Court did not consider Section 195(1)(b)(ii) separately but provided a holistic view of the scheme under Section 195(1)(b).
17.1 Just like a private party who has been a victim of forgery committed outside the precincts of the Court, the investigative agency should not be left remediless against persons who have producing false evidence for the purpose of interfering with the investigation process. Moreover, the present case concerns offences alleged to have been committed under the PC Act. Public interest and the reputation of the State will suffer significant harm if corrupt public servants are facilitated by third parties in hiding their assets from scrutiny. Hence any interpretation which negates against the speedy and effective trial of such persons must be avoided.
17.2 The application of the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(i), CrPC to situations such as the present case can lead to two scenarios. The first is one in which the investigative agency, on the basis of false/fabricated material drops the case. Subsequently, it is brought to their notice that the evidence was falsified. Second, the investigative agency at that very stage suspects that the material produced before them is bogus or forged in nature. In both scenarios, the Court has not had an opportunity to consider the allegedly fabricated evidence, as trial has not yet commenced in respect of the offence. Hence it would not be possible for the Court to independently ascertain the need for lodging a complaint under Section 195(1)(b)(i) read with Section 340, CrPC when the evidence alleged to have been falsified is not even present on its records. Rather, it is the investigating agency which is best placed to verify and prove whether such falsification has taken place, through what means and for what purpose.
17.3 In case the bar under Section 195(1)(b)(i) is applied to offences committed during the course of investigation, the Court may think it fit to wait till the completion of trial to evaluate whether a complaint should be made or not. Subsequently, the Court may be of the opinion that in the larger scheme of things the alleged fabrication of evidence during investigation has not had any material impact on the trial, and decline to initiate prosecution for the same. The investigation agency cannot be compelled to take a chance and wait for the trial court to form its opinion in each and every case. This may give the offender under Section 193, IPC sufficient time to fabricate more falsehoods to hide the original crime. Further, irrespective of the potential impact that such false evidence may have on the opinion formed by the trial court, the investigating agency has a separate right to proceed against the accused for attempting to obstruct fair and transparent probe into a criminal offence. Thus, we are of the view that it would be impracticable to insist upon lodging of written complaint by the Court under Section 195(1)(b)(i), CrPC in such a situation.

Bhima Razu Prasad Vs State of Tamil Nadu on 12 Mar 2021
Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Bhima Razu Prasad Vs State of Tamil Nadu Iqbal Singh Marwah and Anr vs Meenakshi Marwah and Anr Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Reportable Judgement or Order | Leave a comment

Chegireddy Venkata Reddy Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh on 30 Jul 2020

Posted on April 5 by ShadesOfKnife

Long story short, AP HC says, if the Police do not register an FIR if information about a cognizable offence is reported, the remedies are as follows:

The remedies are under Section 154(3), 156(3) and Section 190 r/w.Sec.200 of Cr.P.C.

Chegireddy Venkata Reddy Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh on 30 Jul 2020

Citations :

Other Sources :


A 2-page judgment here which cites this judgment can also be used for same purpose. Saves 24 pages !!!

Posted in High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision Article 226 of The Constitution of India - Exhaust the other remedies at Lower Courts Catena of Landmark Judgments Chegireddy Venkata Reddy Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh Lalita Kumari Vs Govt.Of U.P. and Ors Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes | Leave a comment

Lingam Seetharammayya and Ors Vs State of AP and Ors on 16 Mar 2021

Posted on April 5 by ShadesOfKnife

Single-judge bench of AP HC held that, one cannot directly approach the High Court u/Article 226 of Constitution of India, if the Police do not register an FIR if information about a cognizable offence is reported relying on the case law from AP HC here.

The remedies are under Section 154(3), 156(3) and Section 190 r/w.Sec.200 of Cr.P.C.

Lingam Seetharammayya and Ors Vs State of AP and Ors on 16 Mar 2021
Posted in High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision Article 226 of The Constitution of India - Exhaust the other remedies at Lower Courts Chegireddy Venkata Reddy Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh CrPC 154 - Information in Cognizable Cases CrPC 156 - Police Officer's Power to Investigate Cognizable Case CrPC 190 - Cognizance of Offences by Magistrates CrPC 200 - Examination Of Complainant Lalita Kumari Vs Govt.Of U.P. and Ors Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Lingam Seetharammayya and Ors Vs State of AP and Ors | Leave a comment

State of Maharashtra Vs Ahamed Aasif Fakih on 18 Mar 2021

Posted on April 4 by ShadesOfKnife

In this case before District Sessions Judge Thane, the accused-Advocate is prosecuted for offence of assaulting his own wife with intention to kill her and possessing firearm.

State of Maharashtra Vs Ahamed Aasif Fakih on 18 March 2021
Posted in District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Advocate Antics State of Maharashtra Vs Ahamed Aasif Fakih | Leave a comment

Vijaysingh Yadav Vs State of Madhya Pradesh

Posted on April 4 by ShadesOfKnife

 

On 2021-03-26

It was ordered that for mental checkup be done for the accused-Advocate through a qualified Doctor or a psychiatrist and submit report before this Court.

Vijaysingh Yadav Vs State of Madhya Pradesh on 26 Mar 2021
Posted in High Court of Madhya Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Advocate Antics Vijaysingh Yadav Vs State of Madhya Pradesh | Leave a comment

S.Ramesh Vs MS.Cethar Ltd on 12 Jan 2016

Posted on April 4 by ShadesOfKnife

Even though this is not a matrimonial case, the following is nice statement made by the Division bench of Madurai bench of Madras High Court.

From Para 17,

….

It is needless to point out that a person who enjoyed the benefit of an interim order, is liable to compensate the other party, when the main case is decided against him.

….

S.Ramesh Vs MS.Cethar Ltd on 12 Jan 2016

Citations :

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/110371360/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5728e0d6e561092708a3c705

Posted in High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision PWDV Act - Refund of Maintenance | Leave a comment

Masood Khan Vs. Millie Hazarika on 04 Mar 2021

Posted on April 3 by ShadesOfKnife

Disagreeing with a catena of judgements here, here, here, here, Single-bench of High Court of Meghalaya relied upon this landmark decision from Supreme Court here and held that a false DV case can be quashed u/s 482 CrPC.

From Paras 33, 34 and 33,

33. The argument of the learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2 in the opinion of this Court are valid as regard the nature and relief contemplated under the DV Act 2005, particularly those seen in Sections 18 to 22 which are civil in nature and can be sought for before any civil court, family court or a criminal court as provided under Section 26 of the said DV Act. However, the learned counsel has failed to notice that in Section 26 of the DV Act, the aggrieved person apart from a civil court or a family court, can seek the reliefs stated above even from a criminal court and in doing so, the aggrieved person would subject herself to the jurisdiction of a criminal court following the procedure of the Criminal Procedure Code.

34. In fact, Section 28 of the DV Act 2005 specifically provides that all proceedings under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 as well as Section 31 shall be governed by the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, though liberty was also given to the court to lay down its own procedure.

35. The applicability of the said provision of Section 28 of the said DV Act in criminal proceedings was emphasized by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Satish Chander Ahuja (supra) at paragraphs 138 and 139 where it has restated that the procedure to be followed shall be under the Code of Criminal Procedure.

From Paras 38, 39

38. It is also a fact that Section 482 Cr.P.C provides for inherent power on the High Court to make such order as may be necessary to give effect to any order under the Code and as stated above, proceedings under the DV Act being governed by the procedure under the Cr.P.C, therefore the logical conclusion would be that an application under Section 482 is maintainable qua order passed under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 of the DV Act.
39. With due respect, the decisions of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court and the Madras High Court cited above and relied upon by the learned Counsel for the Respondent No 2, as far as the procedural aspects under the DV Act is concerned, would not stand the test in the light of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Satish Chander Ahuja (supra).

Masood Khan Vs. Millie Hazarika on 04 Mar 2021
Posted in High Court of Meghalaya Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision Catena of Landmark Judgments Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Maintainability Masood Khan Vs. Millie Hazarika | Leave a comment

V.K.Vijayalekshmi Amma Vs Bindu V on 2 Dec 2009

Posted on April 3 by ShadesOfKnife

This case was decided by a single-judge bench and key points are highlighted below. This case law was cited here.

 

 

V.K.Vijayalekshmi Amma Vs Bindu V on 2 Dec 2009

Citations : [2010 AIR KER NOC 415], [2010 ILR KER 1 60], [2010 CRLJ NOC 549], [2010 RCR CIVIL 6 1046], [2010 KERLT 1 79], [2009 SCC ONLINE KER 6448], [2010 AIC 87 367], [2010 KLT 1 79]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/40197/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56b48cef607dba348ffefb96

http://document.manupatra.com/kerala/2001-2003/ke2009/K090810.htm

 

Posted in High Court of Kerala Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Landmark Case Maintainability V.K.Vijayalekshmi Amma Vs Bindu V | Leave a comment

Post navigation

  • Older posts

Search within entire Content of “Shades of Knife”

My Twitter Timeline

Tweets by @Shadesofknife

Recent Posts

  • Varshaben Himantlal Vejani Vs State of Gujarat on 15 Jul 2016 April 13, 2021
  • Rajesh R. Nair Vs Meera Babu on 5 Mar 2013 April 13, 2021
  • Bhima Razu Prasad Vs State of Tamil Nadu on 12 Mar 2021 April 6, 2021
  • Chegireddy Venkata Reddy Vs Government of Andhra Pradesh on 30 Jul 2020 April 5, 2021
  • Lingam Seetharammayya and Ors Vs State of AP and Ors on 16 Mar 2021 April 5, 2021

Most Read Posts

  • Satish Chander Ahuja Vs Sneha Ahuja on 15 Oct 2020 (844 views)
  • Government Guesthouse at Kapuluppada, Visakhapatnam (479 views)
  • Dr Nallapareddy Sridhar Reddy Vs State of AP and Ors (450 views)
  • In Re To issues certain guidelines regarding inadequacies and deficiencies in criminal trials (409 views)
  • Rajnesh Pal Naidu Vs Neha Naidu Joshi and Anr on 04 Nov 2020 (401 views)
  • IPC 498A is a Compoundable Case in Andhra Pradesh (385 views)
  • Default Bail under Code of Criminal Procedure (311 views)
  • Dr. Haniraj L. Chulani Vs Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa on 8 April 1996 (309 views)
  • Vijay Kumar Ramachandra Bhate Vs Neela Vijay Kumar Bhate on 16 April, 2003 (305 views)
  • Shabnam Sheikh Vs State of Maharashtra on 15 Oct 2020 (249 views)

Tags

Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes (236)Landmark Case (230)Reportable Judgement or Order (196)Work-In-Progress Article (196)Catena of Landmark Judgments (146)2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision (127)Sandeep Pamarati (82)Article 21 of The Constitution of India (64)Absurd Or After Thought Or Baseless Or False Or General Or Inherently Improbable Or Improved Or UnSpecific Or Omnibus Or Vague Allegations (50)Perjury Under 340 CrPC (47)Summary Post (46)3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision (46)1-Judge Bench Decision (45)Reprimands or Setbacks to YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh (44)IPC 498a Not Made Out (32)CrPC 482 - Quash (32)Rules of the Act/Ordinance/Notification/Circular (32)PWDV Act 20 - Maintenance Granted (31)PIL - CrPC 125 Must Go From Statute Book (28)Advocate Antics (27)

Categories

Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification (520)Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments (271)High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (138)High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification (85)High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification (79)General Study Material (53)High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification (46)Prakasam DV Cases (46)LLB Study Material (45)Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications (40)High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification (38)Judicial Activism (for Public Benefit) (35)High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification (34)District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification (30)High Court of Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification (28)High Court of Gujarat Judgment or Order or Notification (22)High Court of Madhya Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (21)High Court of Kerala Judgment or Order or Notification (16)High Court of Calcutta Judgment or Order or Notification (12)Chittor DV Cases (11)

Recent Comments

  • ShadesOfKnife on Sirangai Shoba @ Shoba Munnuri Vs Sirangi Muralidhar Rao on 19 October, 2016
  • muralidhar Rao Sirangi on Sirangai Shoba @ Shoba Munnuri Vs Sirangi Muralidhar Rao on 19 October, 2016
  • ShadesOfKnife on J.Shyam Babu Vs The State Of Telangana on 9 February, 2017
  • anuj on J.Shyam Babu Vs The State Of Telangana on 9 February, 2017
  • ShadesOfKnife on Syed Nazim Husain Vs Additional Principal Judge Family Court & Anr on 9 January, 2003

Archives of SoK

  • April 2021 (14)
  • March 2021 (58)
  • February 2021 (14)
  • January 2021 (50)
  • December 2020 (35)
  • November 2020 (68)
  • October 2020 (67)
  • September 2020 (29)
  • August 2020 (42)
  • July 2020 (20)
  • June 2020 (36)
  • May 2020 (40)
  • April 2020 (38)
  • March 2020 (26)
  • February 2020 (43)
  • January 2020 (36)
  • December 2019 (35)
  • November 2019 (4)
  • October 2019 (18)
  • September 2019 (58)
  • August 2019 (33)
  • July 2019 (12)
  • June 2019 (19)
  • 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 (74)
  • August 2018 (47)
  • July 2018 (143)
  • June 2018 (92)
  • May 2018 (102)
  • 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
  • Vaastav Foundation The Social Reality 0
  • Voice4india Indian Laws, Non-profits, Environment 0
  • Writing Law Writing Law by Ankur 0

RSS Cloudflare Status

  • Elevated number of 530/503 errors from Amsterdam, Netherlands - (AMS) April 14, 2021
    Apr 14, 00:23 UTCResolved - This incident has been resolved.Apr 13, 17:35 UTCInvestigating - Customers reaching Amsterdam, Netherlands - (AMS) would have experienced an elevated number of 530/503 errors.
  • Cloudflare control plane API April 13, 2021
    Apr 13, 22:12 UTCResolved - This incident has been resolved.Apr 13, 21:57 UTCMonitoring - A fix has been implemented and we are monitoring the results.Apr 13, 21:52 UTCInvestigating - Cloudflare control plane API is experiencing a partial outage. This impacts the administration of SSL for SaaS , and Cloudflare Pages. SSL termination and Pages at […]
  • Distributed Web Resolver Issues April 12, 2021
    Apr 12, 18:00 UTCResolved - Queries to the Cloudflare Distributed Web Resolver for the Distributed Web Gateway were unsuccessful on April 12th 2020 from 18:00 to 00:00 UTC. Websites served by the gateway during this time may have displayed errors or been inaccessible.

RSS List of Spam Server IPs from Project Honeypot

  • 212.129.2.166 | SD April 13, 2021
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 26,333 | First: 2018-11-27 | Last: 2021-04-13
  • 104.223.85.87 | S April 13, 2021
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 10 | First: 2021-03-27 | Last: 2021-04-13
  • 190.247.240.155 | SD April 13, 2021
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 128 | First: 2021-04-13 | Last: 2021-04-13
Proudly powered by WordPress
Theme: Flint by Star Verte LLC
pixel