Ram Singh Vs State of UP on 21 Feb 2024

Posted on October 19 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Supreme Court granted benefit of doubt to petitioner since on same set of evidence co-accused was acquitted.

From Para 6.3,

6.3. He further submits that the trial court had committed a fundamental error in convicting the appellant on the one hand and acquitting the co-accused Lala Ram on the other hand. Evidence against both were the same. When on the same set of evidence the co-accused was acquitted, the trial court ought to have acquitted the appellant as well. This aspect was overlooked by the High Court. In support of his submission, learned counsel has placed reliance on a decision of this Court in Javed Shaukat Ali Qureshi Vs. State of Gujarat, (2023) 9 SCC 164.

From Para 33,

33. Thus, on a careful analysis of the evidence on record, we are of the view that the appellant should be given the benefit of doubt as according to us, the prosecution could not prove his guilt beyond all reasonable doubt. Any lingering doubt about the involvement of an accused in the crime he is accused of committing, must weigh on the mind of the court and in such a situation, the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused. This is more so when the co-accused is acquitted by the trial court on the same set of evidence.

Ram Singh Vs State of UP on 21 Feb 2024

Ram Singh Vs State of UP on 21 Feb 2024 (SCR)

Citations:

Other Sources:

Highlights:

FIR in 1982 and Conviction by Sessions Court in 1983.
Appeal in High Court filed in 1983 and Dismissed in 2018.
Criminal Appeal in Supreme Court filed in 2018 and Allowed in 2026.

Index of Quash Judgments is here.

G.Abdul Rafi Vs State of AP and Anr on 12 Aug 2026

Posted on October 18 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of AP High Court held that, When the charges under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act have not been proved,it cannot be said that the allegation of torture can stand independently without the allegation of demand of dowry. Conviction u/s 498A IPC was set aside.

From Para 7.6

7.6 On a plain reading of the entire complaint/FIR, it appears that the allegation of torture was made against both A.1 and A.2 only for the demand of additional dowry. When the charges under Sections 3 and 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act have not been proved, as observed by learned Appellate Court, it cannot be said that the allegation of torture can stand independently without the allegation of demand of dowry. That is to say, when there is an allegation of torture upon a married woman by her husband and relatives on account of a demand for additional dowry, after conclusion of the trial, if it appears that the demand for dowry has not been proved, the allegation of torture itself cannot stand independently.

and from Para 7.9 and 7.10,

7.9 Considering the entire aspect of the matter, I am of the view that in a criminal case, when there is a clear allegation of torture upon a married woman on account of a demand for additional dowry, and after trial it has been disproved that there were no demand for additional dowry, the sole allegation of torture, as alleged to have been meted out by the husband and his relatives, cannot stand alone; moreover, delay in lodging FIR was not explained by prosecution in this case.
7.10 Under the above observation, in my view, the conviction of A.1 under Section 498-A of IPC, solely on the basis of the allegation of torture without any demand for additional dowry, cannot be maintainable.

G.Abdul Rafi Vs State of AP and Anr on 12 Aug 2026

Citations:

Other Sources:

Highlights:

Conviction in 2008.
Appeal disposed in 2009.
Criminal Revision in 2026.

One more fake case. Quashed by APHC.
Shield Turned into Weapon.

Index of Quash Judgments is here.

Case Lifecycle Explorer – BNS s.85, DV Act and Maintenance

Posted on October 16 by ShadesOfKnife

Case Lifecycle Explorer

Pick a case type, see the whole journey from the first step to the end, and tap any stage to see what it is for, what feeds into it, what comes out of it, the papers involved, the time limits, the relaxations and the costs.

Round one: BNS s.85 (cruelty by husband or relatives), Domestic Violence Act cases, Maintenance cases. More case types will follow.

General legal information for educational and awareness purpose, not legal advice for a particular client or case. Consult an advocate of your choice who is responsible, transparent and reachable to you and charges reasonable fees considering the quantum of work involved in the case at hand.

Subject to change. The content of this page is subject to new information acquired over time. It is updated as law, rules and court practice change. Check the date of last update before you rely on it: Last updated: 16-Oct-2026. The Hindi and Telugu versions of this note are reviewed by Adv Sandeep Pamarati. English governs.

1. Choose your case

2. I am on the side of

3. Tap a stage

4. Court fees and costs

6. If a party is outside India: who signs what, and how

Courts here look for a genuine signature or oath. For a party abroad, signing before an Indian consular officer is the safest route. Other routes are used in practice and are marked as such. The Hindi and Telugu versions of this section are reviewed by Adv Sandeep Pamarati. English governs.

author’s practice = from the author’s own court filings, not a rule. verified partly verified not verified as in the key below.

A. Complainant or petitioner side

Who appears

Police case (for example BNS s.85 on a charge sheet): the State prosecutes through the Assistant Public Prosecutor (APP) in the Magistrate’s court and the Public Prosecutor in the Sessions Court. BNSS s.18 and s.19 (old CrPC s.24 and s.25). The complainant abroad signs nothing for the APP. verified
The APP in charge may appear and plead without any written authority. BNSS s.338(1) (old CrPC s.301(1)). verified
A private advocate instructed by the complainant acts under the directions of the APP and may, with the court’s permission, file written arguments after the evidence. BNSS s.338(2) (old CrPC s.301(2)). The court may also permit the victim to engage an advocate of choice to assist the prosecution: proviso to BNSS s.18(8). verified
A Magistrate may permit any other person to conduct the prosecution, personally or through an advocate. BNSS s.339 (old CrPC s.302). verified
Private complaint, DV Act application, maintenance petition: a private advocate appears for the complainant or petitioner and a vakalatnama is filed.
Karnataka: the advocate appearing for the prosecution files a vakalatnama (a memorandum of appearance is allowed only in criminal appeals). A complainant who has engaged an advocate is not heard in person unless the vakalatnama is withdrawn. Karnataka Criminal Rules of Practice 1968, rule 6(1) and 6(4). verified

Documents signed abroad: what to use

Safest for any document: sign before an Indian consular officer. An Indian diplomatic or consular officer may administer oaths, take affidavits and do notarial acts, with the same effect as in India, and the seal and signature are received without proof. Diplomatic and Consular Officers (Oaths and Fees) Act 1948, s.3. verified
Vakalatnama: it must be signed by the client or an authorised agent (CPC Order III rule 4). In AP the execution must be before, or attested by, one of the listed officers: Andhra Pradesh Civil Rules of Practice, rule 31. The AP High Court held on 11-Feb-2026 that an unattested vakalat is defective (secondary source). verified for the rules, partly verified for the ruling. A scan, e-signature or unattested copy: not verified.
Signed and notarised abroad, sent by courier or post: vakalatnamas and affidavits (chief examination affidavit, income affidavit) signed and notarised in two foreign countries, without apostille, and sent to the advocate by courier or by the foreign postal service, were accepted by the Family Courts and the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate courts at Vijayawada and Bengaluru. author’s practice The rule texts read name Indian officers and Indian notaries, not foreign notaries, so this is practice and not a rule. Other courts: not verified.
Apostille: not a validity condition of the document. It replaces consular legalisation and shows that the foreign notary or official is genuine. The Ministry of External Affairs says an apostilled document is treated as legalised in India. It applies only if both countries are in the Hague Convention and neither has objected to the other’s accession (India and Germany, and India and China, are cases where the Convention does not operate between them). Check the Hague status table for the country. verified
Affidavit: must be sworn. CPC s.139 names Indian courts, Indian notaries and officers appointed by the High Court. verified

Power of attorney (GPA, SPA)

The court presumes that a power of attorney executed before and authenticated by a Notary Public, a Court, Judge, Magistrate, Indian Consul or Vice-Consul, or a representative of the Central Government was so executed. BSA s.84 (old Evidence Act s.85). It covers powers of attorney only, not vakalatnamas or affidavits. verified
If only a foreign notary is used, High Courts differ on whether the country must be notified under Notaries Act s.14. Kerala High Court (2025) says proof of reciprocity is needed. Madras High Court Division Bench says it is not (secondary sources). The official list shows five notifications: UK, Hungary, Belgium, New Zealand, Ireland. No AP, Telangana or Karnataka ruling found. partly verified
A power of attorney cannot be e-signed: it is excluded from the e-signature provisions (IT Act First Schedule, item 2). verified
What the holder can say in court: a power of attorney holder can sign, file and depose only about facts he knows personally or acts he did under the power. He cannot depose for the principal on what only the principal knows, and the principal is the one open to cross-examination on it. Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani v Indusind Bank, (2005) 2 SCC 217. Man Kaur v Hartar Singh Sangha, (2010) 10 SCC 512, para 12. In a cheque-dishonour complaint (s.138 NI Act) the holder may depose only if he witnessed the transaction or knows it, and the complaint must say so: A.C. Narayanan v State of Maharashtra, (2014) 11 SCC 790, para 26. verified These are civil cases and s.138; a direct authority for BNS s.85, the DV Act or maintenance cases: not verified

Evidence and presence

Trials, inquiries and proceedings, including examination of witnesses, may be held in electronic mode. BNSS s.530. Old CrPC s.273 required evidence in the accused’s presence; the Supreme Court held that video conference satisfies it (State of Maharashtra v Praful B. Desai, 2003). verified
Mutual-consent divorce (HMA s.13B): the court may use video conferencing and allow a close relative to represent a party (Amardeep Singh v Harveen Kaur, Supreme Court, 12-Sep-2017). verified
Family Courts Act s.13: no party can claim a legal practitioner as of right. The court may seek the assistance of one. verified
Maintenance: both parties file the Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities (Enclosures I to III). Rajnesh v Neha, (2021) 2 SCC 324. verified How a party abroad must swear it: see the affidavit points above.

B. Accused side

Who appears and on what paper

An accused may of right be defended by an advocate of his choice. BNSS s.340 (old CrPC s.303). verified
Memorandum of appearance instead of a vakalatnama: in criminal proceedings the advocate for the accused files a vakalatnama or a memorandum of appearance with a declaration that he is duly instructed, giving the enrolment number, address and the name and address of the person who instructed him. Karnataka: Criminal Rules of Practice 1968, rule 6(2). verified Karnataka High Court decisions say a vakalatnama is not needed in a criminal case if such a memo is filed (secondary sources). partly verified
Andhra Pradesh and Telangana: advocates for the accused file a memo of appearance in practice, and no court has objected. author’s practice The rule number is not verified (a law-firm form cites a rule, but it was not found in the official AP and Telangana text).
DV Act applications and maintenance cases (Family Court or Magistrate) are civil in nature. Use a vakalatnama unless the court’s practice is confirmed. Memo of appearance there: not verified
The Magistrate may dispense with the accused’s personal attendance and permit appearance by advocate: BNSS s.228 (old CrPC s.205). Trial may proceed in the absence of an accused represented by an advocate: BNSS s.355 (old CrPC s.317). verified Either way, the advocate must be properly instructed.
Affidavits, powers of attorney and documents abroad: the same points as in A above.

Registries and judges differ. Before sending papers abroad, check the current practice of the court and check your city’s Indian mission website for how it attests documents. “Not verified” means no source was found. This is general legal information, not legal advice.

How to read the labels. verified checked against the cited text or source. partly verified a source exists but current applicability is not confirmed. not verified no source found yet. Where a line says “verify”, the point was drawn from general knowledge of the law and should be checked against the current text before relying on it. Old CrPC/IPC section numbers are given beside BNSS/BNS ones. Sources include India Code section pages (indiacode.ecourtsindia.com), the PWDV Act text (commonlii.org), the Supreme Court and High Court judgments linked above, and the Shades of Knife lifecycle posts on Life Cycles of Various Case Types.

Secretary to Government Vs Sameer Ahamed N and Ors on 15 Oct 2026

Posted on October 15 by ShadesOfKnife

A two-Judge bench of the Supreme Court held as follows,

From Para 61(a), (c), (e) and (f),

a) A person who converts from a Hindu social order to a non-Hindu social order cannot claim affirmative action under Article 16(4) of the Constitution merely on the basis of the social backwardness associated with his pre-conversion status; the backwardness suffered in the antecedent social order cannot, by itself, be carried forward so as to confer upon him the status of a backward class in the religion to which he has converted.
c) Conversion to a non-Hindu social order does not, by itself, confer membership of any particular notified Backward Class community. A person’s pre-conversion caste or community status cannot, merely by reason of conversion, be transposed into membership of a distinct notified Backward Class community in the post-conversion social order. The social backwardness which formed the basis of the person’s pre-conversion status cannot, by itself, furnish the legal foundation for conferring upon him membership of a different notified Backward Class community after conversion.
e) No statutory benefit, protection, reservation or other entitlement under Article 16(4) of the Constitution, the enjoyment of which is predicated upon a particular Hindu social order, can be claimed or extended merely on the basis of such antecedent membership after the person has converted to Islam, Christianity or any other non-Hindu social order. Such conversion severs the legal foundation of an entitlement which is specifically conditioned upon membership of that Hindu social order.
f) A community certificate is declaratory of, and does not create or confer, the status which it purports to recognise. Neither the issuance of a community certificate nor an executive instruction can enlarge, modify or dispense with the substantive constitutional and statutory conditions governing membership of the class or entitlement to the benefits attached thereto.

From Para 54,

Reservation is attached to a constitutionally identified class and not to an individual as a transferable personal entitlement. The constitutional enquiry is directed to the class, its common characteristics and the disadvantage which binds its members together…

From Paras 62 and 63 (Conclusion),

62. We therefore affirm the central conclusion of the High Court, though our reasoning proceeds on the constitutional foundations set out above. A person who converts to Islam does not, by that act alone, become a member of any one of the seven notified Backward Class Muslim communities in the State. His former caste or community status cannot automatically be transposed into the Muslim Backward Class category, nor can a private religious body conclusively determine such statutory entitlement.
63. Tested on that standard, we are of the view that the impugned G.O. cannot be sustained and has rightly been quashed by the High Court. It creates an artificial route by which a person moves from a pre-conversion backward social order into a notified Muslim backward class without establishing the necessary social and legal link.

The Special Leave Petition against the Madras High Court’s quashing of G.O.(Ms) No. 31 dated 09.03.2024 was dismissed (Para 64).

Secretary to Government Vs Sameer Ahamed N and Ors on 15 Oct 2026

Citations: 2026 INSC 1129; SLP (C) No. 25507/2026 (Diary No. 39624/2026).

Other Sources:

The Judgment of Madras High Court bench at Madurai is here.

Sameer Ahamed Vs The District Collector and Ors on 25 Jun 2026

The GO issued that got struck down as unconstitutional in this context is here.

2024-03-09 Converts to Islam from BC

Sunanda and Anr Vs Bharat Naik on 31 Jan 2011

Posted on October 14 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Karnataka High Court at Kalaburgi bench held as follows,

From Para 5,

5. I have perused the original records obtained from the Family Court. The order sheet dated 7.7.2005 reveals that on the said date of hearing 1st petitioner filed her affidavit in lieu other examination-in-chief and the Family Court received the same. It further reveals that the respondent was not present and his counsel was also absent on that day and that the distress warrant issued against the respondent for enforcing the interim order of maintenance was not received. Thus it is clear that the affidavit of the 1st petitioner as her examination-in-chief was received in the absence of the respondent and his counsel.

From Paras 8-10,

8. Further, Section 126(2) of Cr. P.C provides that all evidence to proceedings under Chapter IX of Cr. P.C shall be taken in the presence of the person against whom an order of payment of maintenance is proposed to be made, or, when his personal attendance is dispensed with, in the presence of his pleader, and shall be recorded in the manner prescribed for summons-cases. Further proviso to sub-Section (2) of Section 126 Cr. P.C provides that if the Magistrate is satisfied that the person against whom an order for payment of maintenance is proposed to be made is willfully avoiding service, or willfully neglecting to attend the Court, the Magistrate may proceed to hear and determine the case ex parte.
9. As observed by me supra, on 7.7.2005 on which date the 1st petitioner filed her affidavit in lieu of her examination-in-chief, the respondent and his Counsel were not present. The order sheet does not reveal further that on that date of hearing, personal attendance of the respondent was dispensed with or that the Family Court was satisfied that the respondent, against whom an order of payment of maintenance was proposed to be made, was willfully avoiding service or willfully neglecting to attend the Court. Therefore, recording of the evidence for the petitioners by receiving the affidavit of the 1st petitioner therein in lieu of her examination-in-chief, in the absence of the respondent and his Counsel, is in violative of the mandatory provisions of Section 126(2) of Cr. PC and proviso to it.
10. Besides the above, the very filing of the affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief of either the petitioner or the respondent, in a maintenance proceeding is also violative of provisions of Section 126(2) of Cr. PC inasmuch as, the said provision provides that the evidence shall be recorded in the manner prescribed for summons-cases. The receiving of affidavit in lieu of examination-in-chief of a witness is not prescribed under any of the provisions of Cr. P.C providing for recording of the evidence in summons-cases.

Sunanda Vs Bharat Naik on 31 Jan 2011

Citations:

Other Sources:

Index of Maintenance Cases here.

Veerisetty Ramesh Babu Vs Veerisetty Ramadevi and Anr on 24 Apr 2020

Posted on October 13 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of AP High Court held as follows,

A careful reading of the above Section 126(2) CrPC makes it manifest that all evidence relating to the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. shall be taken in the presence of the person against whom an order for payment of maintenance is proposed to be made, or, when his personal attendance is dispensed with, in the presence of his pleader, and shall be recorded in the manner prescribed for summons- cases. Chapter-XX of the Cr.P.C. deals with trial of summons cases by Magistrates. It contains Sections 251 to 259 Cr.P.C. Section 254 thereof contemplates that the Magistrate shall proceed to hear the prosecution and take all such evidence as may be produced in support of the prosecution, and also to hear the accused and take all such evidence as he produces in his defence.
Therefore, a combined reading of Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. and Section 254 Cr.P.C. makes it absolutely clear that the evidence has to be taken up by the Court in such proceedings in the presence of the opposite party or when his presence is dispensed with in the presence of his pleader and recording evidence in the form of taking evidence affidavit is not contemplated and it is not permissible under law.
It is significant to note that clause (2) of Section 10 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, clearly mandates that the procedure contemplated under Cr.P.C. or the Rules made thereunder shall apply to the proceedings under Chapter IX of Cr.P.C. even before a Family Court. Therefore, even the Family Courts Act, 1984 also mandates that the procedure contemplated under Section 126(2) Cr.P.C. which is part of Chapter IX of Cr.P.C. in recording the evidence shall be followed when the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. are initiated before the Family Court.

Veerisetty Ramesh Babu Vs Veerisetty Ramadevi and Anr on 24 Apr 2020

Citations:

Other Sources:

Index of Maintenance Cases here.

Karnam Upendra Vs K Parameswari and Anr on 24 Mar 2026

Posted on October 13 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of AP High Court held as follows,

In paras 8 and 9,

8. The first limb of the challenge relates to the manner in which evidence was received by the Trial Court. The answer to this issue must necessarily be gathered from the language employed in Section 126(2) Cr.P.C(Section 145 (2) of BNSS). The provision stipulates that “all evidence in such proceedings shall be taken in the presence of the person against whom an order for payment of maintenance is proposed to be made, or, when his personal attendance is dispensed with, in the presence of his pleader.” The legislature has consciously employed the expression “shall”, thereby making the requirement mandatory in nature. The provision does not contemplate evidence being tendered by way of affidavits nor does it contain any enabling provision authorising the Court to substitute oral chief-examination with evidence affidavit.
9. The statutory mandate becomes more evident when Section 126(2) (Section 145 (2) of BNSS) is read harmoniously with Section 254 Cr.P.C(Section 277 of BNSS)., which prescribes the procedure for recording evidence in summons cases. Chapter IX of the Code envisages that evidence is to be adduced before the Court and recorded in the presence of the opposite party. Therefore, the procedure contemplated under Order XVIII Rule 4 CPC, which permits examination-in-chief by way of affidavit, cannot be imported into proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C(Section 144 of BNSS) in the absence of an express statutory provision.

Karnam Upendra Vs K Parameswari and Anr on 24 Mar 2026

Citations:

Other Sources:

Index of Maintenance Cases here.

Non-stamping or inadequate stamping is a curable defect?

Posted on October 12 by ShadesOfKnife

A 7-Judge Bench of Supreme Court held as follows, with respect to Non-stamping or inadequate stamping is a curable defect or not?

224. The conclusions reached in this judgment are summarised below:
a. Agreements which are not stamped or are inadequately stamped are inadmissible in evidence under Section 35 of the Stamp Act. Such agreements are not rendered void or void ab initio or unenforceable;
b. Non-stamping or inadequate stamping is a curable defect;
c. An objection as to stamping does not fall for determination under Sections 8 or 11 of the Arbitration Act. The concerned court must examine whether the arbitration agreement prima facie exists;
d. Any objections in relation to the stamping of the agreement fall within the ambit of the arbitral tribunal; and
e. The decision in NN Global 2 (supra) and SMS Tea Estates (supra) are overruled. Paragraphs 22 and 29 of Garware Wall Ropes (supra) are overruled to that extent.

Non-stamping or inadequate stamping is a curable defect on 13 Dec 2023

Citations:

Other Sources:

Validity of an unstamped arbitration agreement | Judgement Summary

Index

Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani and Anr Vs Indusind Bank Ltd and Ors on 6 Dec 2004

Posted on October 12 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of the Apex Court held as follows, with respect to what a GPA-holder can do and not.

Order III, Rules 1 and 2 CPC, empowers the holder of power of attorney to “act” on behalf of the principal. In our view the word “acts” employed in Order III, Rules 1 and 2 CPC, confines only in respect of “acts” done by the power of attorney holder in exercise of power granted by the instrument. The term “acts” would not include deposing in place and instead of the principal. In other words, if the power of attorney holder has rendered some “acts” in pursuance to power of attorney, he may depose for the principal in respect of such acts, but he cannot depose for the principal for the acts done by the principal and not by him. Similarly, he cannot depose for the principal in respect of the matter which only the principal can have a personal knowledge and in respect of which the principal is entitled to be cross-examined.

Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani and Anr Vs Indusind Bank Ltd and Ors on 6 Dec 2004

Citations: [2004 SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 681], [2004 INSC 695], [AIR 2005 SUPREME COURT 439], [2005 (2) SCC 217], [2004 AIR SCW 7064, (2007) 2 NIJ 395], [2005 (2) SRJ 281], [(2004) 10 JT 264 (SC)], [(2005) 3 CTC 128 (SC)], [(2005) 3 MAD LJ 109], [2004 (10) JT 264, (2005) 1 CLR 737 (SC)], [(2005) 3 JCR 175 (SC)], [2004 (10) SCALE 244, 2005 (2) ALL CJ 924], [2004 (7) SLT 441], [(2005) ILR (KANT) 729], [(2005) 1 ALL WC 138], [(2004) 63 CORLA 174], [(2005) 1 RECCIVR 240], [(2005) 3 MAD LW 403], [(2004) 10 SCALE 244], [(2005) 1 SCJ 520], [(2005) 2 CIVILCOURTC 324, (2005) 2 LANDLR 585], [(2005) 98 REVDEC 371], [(2005) 3 ANDHLD 43], [(2005) 3 SUPREME 275], [(2005) 1 WLC(SC)CVL 245], [(2005) 1 CAL HN 175], [(2005) 123 COMCAS 154], [(2005) 1 MAH LJ 1170, (2005) 1 MPLJ 421], [(2005) 2 PUN LR 1], [(2005) 1 KCCR 227], [(2005) 58 ALL LR 440], [(2005) 2 ANDH LT 57, (2005) 2 KER LT 265], [(2005) 58 ALL LR 610], [(2005) 1 ALL RENTCAS 409], [(2005) 3 CIVLJ 775], [(2005) 2 CURCC 61], [(2005) 1 ALL WC 831], [(2005) 1 BANKCLR 438], [(2005) 3 BOM CR 846]

Other Sources:

Index

When did Anantapur become Ananthapuramu?

Posted on October 9 by ShadesOfKnife

Here is the G.O. for Altering the name of Ananthapur District as “Ananthapuramu District“

2013-04-10 2013REV_MS187

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Author: ShadesOfKnife

Ram Singh Vs State of UP on 21 Feb 2024

G.Abdul Rafi Vs State of AP and Anr on 12 Aug 2026

Case Lifecycle Explorer – BNS s.85, DV Act and Maintenance

Case Lifecycle Explorer

1. Choose your case

2. I am on the side of

3. Tap a stage

4. Court fees and costs

6. If a party is outside India: who signs what, and how

A. Complainant or petitioner side

Who appears

Documents signed abroad: what to use

Power of attorney (GPA, SPA)

Evidence and presence

B. Accused side

Who appears and on what paper

Secretary to Government Vs Sameer Ahamed N and Ors on 15 Oct 2026

Sunanda and Anr Vs Bharat Naik on 31 Jan 2011

Veerisetty Ramesh Babu Vs Veerisetty Ramadevi and Anr on 24 Apr 2020

Karnam Upendra Vs K Parameswari and Anr on 24 Mar 2026

Non-stamping or inadequate stamping is a curable defect?

Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani and Anr Vs Indusind Bank Ltd and Ors on 6 Dec 2004

When did Anantapur become Ananthapuramu?