Author: ShadesOfKnife
Rooplal and Ors Vs Manpreet Kaur on 05 November, 2019
Justice Fateh Deep Singh ji has begun his judgment with this,
The surmounting rise in the number of petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the processes being initiated by various Courts under the jurisdiction of this High Court for the matters dealing with the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short, ‘the Act’) and the subdued clamour that the provisions are discriminatory qua males and lopsided acknowledging of the rights of women vis-à-vis their men folk has led to the amalgamation and clubbing of all these petitions with an effort to clear the air and haze which has engulfed the interpretation of provisions of this Act since its inception and otherwise brings about more uncertainty and confusion.
In India though there existed laws to protect women from perpetrators of violence, in fact even the legal experts felt their inadequacy in dealing with the ever bourgeoning problem of domestic violence and which phenomenon was not being adequately dealt with. One cannot look the other way that even with the coming into force of the Act it has failed to cater to the needs of abuse of male child in the house though subsequently with the enlargement of definition of ‘Rape’ it has been addressed to some extent but not completely.
This legislation has remained in oblivion and indifferent to the Domestic Violence instances concerning men in domestic relationship and thus falls short of constitutional obligation as enshrined under Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution and violates Legal Egalitarianism as well as Article 7 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Being one in such a sphere, the Act has tried to concretely deal with the problems of domestic violence from feminist perspective of law for expeditious redressal of grievance irrespective of the economic, religious and ethnic affiliations of the women.
“Next to God we are indebted to women, first for life itself, and then for making it worth living” – Bovee C.N.
Epigrammatic writer of New York who lived in the 19th century and happens to be one of the members of Literary Circle popularly called “Saturday Evening Club of Boston” has penned these famous indelible lines as a tribute to the female form of homosapiens.
Our Constitution while introducing Gandhian Socialism, Secularism did keep in mind the concept of “Equality” and which became the basic feature of the Constitution and too was acknowledged by the Supreme Court of India in ‘Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India’ (2000) 1 SCC 168. In league with thoughts of great thinkers, the Constituent Assembly introduced Articles 21, 14 and 15, the latter as a special tribute to women and eliminating gender based discrimination. In spite of the same, a debate over the Equality is getting complicated. Since women are often misnomered as ‘Weaker Sex’ and therefore in under-developed countries including developing nations like ours, there is still huge gap in Gender Equality, more dominant in Rural than Urban scenario. The approaches in gender difference broadly fall in protectionist, sameness and compensatory outlook. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights had voiced its concern against discrimination and holding out that all human beings are born free with equal rights and dignity and thus, are all entitled to equal treatment. It was stressed to ensure equal rights to men and women. That is how Declaration on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women came into being and it is with this end in view United Nations resolved the member States to adopt appropriate legislation.
Now the main point starts,
The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is one of the most aggressive approach while enacting such a progressive Act which is enacted in favour of women’s rights. Though a challenge was made it being ultra-vires of the Constitution but the Delhi High Court in 2008 in ‘Aruna Parmod Shah vs. Union of India’ 2008 (3) RCR(Criminal) 191 brushed aside the stand that it was discriminatory to men as protection was afforded only to women. However, it cannot be ignored that less out of social need and more out of political compulsions, multiple Laws are being evolved which are lopsided heavily weighing in favour of women offering them multiple remedies for the same very grievance and for which the present Act is one. In spite of Article 15 of Part IV of ‘Convention on the Elimination of All forms of Discrimination against Women’ which came in force with effect from 3rd September, 1981 had resolved that all State parties shall accord to women equality with men before the law but it is not so in realm.
[pdf-embedder url=”https://www.shadesofknife.in/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Rooplal-and-Ors-Vs-Manpreet-Kaur-on-05-November-2019.pdf” title=”Rooplal and Ors Vs Manpreet Kaur on 05 November, 2019″]
Citations:
Indiankanoon.org or Casemine link:
R.Parijatham and Anr Vs M.Kameshwari and Ors on 21 July, 2017
Based on Division Bench judgment here, AP High Court has passed this observation,
From Para 8,
8. Before closing these cases, we feel the necessity of observing that instances have been coming to the notice of this Court, where some Subordinate Courts have not been marking the documents while disposing of the interlocutory applications. In this context, we are reminded of a Division Bench judgment of this Court in T.Bhoopal Reddy vs. K.R.Laxmi Bai [1998(1) ALT 292 (D.B.)], wherein it was observed that in order to come to a prima facie conclusion, both the trial Court and the Appellate Court should necessarily be able to locate the documents and know its contents to agree with either of the contentions; that nowhere it is envisaged that the case of the contesting parties can only be decided on the affidavits and not on any other material and that in the absence of any specific rule so far as marking of documents at the interlocutory stage is concerned, the Courts would not be justified in not giving any marking at all to such of the documents on which both sides would rely.Regrettably, despite this authoritative pronouncement of the Division Bench, some Courts have been ignoring the same and not marking the documents. The case on hand reflects one such instance. We, therefore, direct the High Court on administrative side to issue a Circular directing the Subordinate Courts to mark the documents filed by the parties to the interlocutory applications before deciding such applications.
Citations:
Indiankanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/38957892/
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
Navtej Singh Johar Vs Union of India on 6 September, 2018
IPC 377 – unnatural offences was struck down as Unconstitutional by Supreme Court.
Citations: [(2018) 10 SCC 1], [2018 SCC OnLine SC 1350],
Indiankanoon.org or Casemine link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/168671544/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5b965a9618a6816e6598fd54
Priyanka Srivastava and Anr Vs State of UP and Ors on 19 March, 2015
Justice Dipak Misra states that Magistrate has to be alive about the allegation brought to him via Non-cognizable case by Police.
From Paras 26 and 27,
26. At this stage it is seemly to state that power under Section 156(3) warrants application of judicial mind. A court of law is involved. It is not the police taking steps at the stage of Section 154 of the code. A litigant at his own whim cannot invoke the authority of the Magistrate. A principled and really grieved citizen with clean hands must have free access to invoke the said power. It protects the citizens but when pervert litigations takes this route to harass their fellows citizens, efforts are to be made to scuttle and curb the same.
27. In our considered opinion, a stage has come in this country where Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. applications are to be supported by an affidavit duly sworn by the applicant who seeks the invocation of the jurisdiction of the Magistrate. That apart, in an appropriate case, the learned Magistrate would be well advised to verify the truth and also can verify the veracity of the allegations. This affidavit can make the applicant more responsible. We are compelled to say so as such kind of applications are being filed in a routine manner without taking any responsibility whatsoever only to harass certain persons. That apart, it becomes more disturbing and alarming when one tries to pick up people who are passing orders under a statutory provision which can be challenged under the framework of said Act or under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. But it cannot be done to take undue advantage in a criminal court as if somebody is determined to settle the scores. We have already indicated that there has to be prior applications under Section 154(1) and 154(3) while filing a petition under Section 156(3). Both the aspects should be clearly spelt out in the application and necessary documents to that effect shall be filed. The warrant for giving a direction that an the application under Section 156(3) be supported by an affidavit so that the person making the application should be conscious and also endeavour to see that no false affidavit is made. It is because once an affidavit is found to be false, he will be liable for prosecution in accordance with law. This will deter him to casually invoke the authority of the Magistrate under Section 156(3). That apart, we have already stated that the veracity of the same can also be verified by the learned Magistrate, regard being had to the nature of allegations of the case. We are compelled to say so as a number of cases pertaining to fiscal sphere, matrimonial dispute/family disputes, commercial offences, medical negligence cases, corruption cases and the cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, as are illustrated in Lalita Kumari are being filed. That apart, the learned Magistrate would also be aware of the delay in lodging of the FIR.
From Para 30,
30. In the present case, we are obligated to say that learned Magistrate should have kept himself alive to the aforesaid provision before venturing into directing registration of the FIR under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. It is because the Parliament in its wisdom has made such a provision to protect the secured creditors or any of its officers, and needles to emphasize, the legislative mandate, has to be kept in mind.
Citations: [AIR 2015 SC 1758], [2015 (3) RLW 2404 (SC)], [2015(3) PLJR 78(SC)], [2015 SCL SC 130 472], [2015 AIOL 3152], [2015 CRIMES SC 2 179], [2015 CRIMES SC 2 209], [2015 CRLJ SC 2396], [2015 JCC SC 2 974], [2015 JT 5 203], [2015 SCALE 4 120], [2015 SCC 6 287], [2015 SLT 3 431], [2015 SUPREME 3 152], [2015 SCC ONLINE SC 272], [2015 CTC 3 103], [2015 KLJ 2 491], [2015 KERLT 2 451], [2015 SCC CRI 4 153], [2015 SCC CIV 3 294]
Indiankanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/163299097/
Casemine link: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5790b242e561097e45a4e25a
The Index for Defamation Judgments is here. Index of Judgments under Sec 156(3) Cr.P.C. are here.
Santineer Vincent Rajkumar Vs R.Rejitha on 3 August, 2017
No Shared household, DVC is not maintainable.
Citation: [2017 (2) LW (Crl.) 399]
Indiankanoon.org or Casemine link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/9488656/
The index page is here.
Vijay Verma Vs State NCT of Delhi and Anr on 13 August, 2010
The US-Resident Dumbo filed DV Case to grab up her father’s property that he had made into the name of his grandson. Shri Shiv Narayan Dhingra ji of Delhi High Court has delivered this judgment wherein the false claim of a woman was crushed due to lack of Shared Household criteria by showing her, her right place and dismissed this Appeal.
Citations: [2010 (118) DRJ 707], [MANU/DE/1946/2010], [2010(7) RCR(Criminal) 1145]
Indiankanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/176922704/
Index of all Domestic Violence Cases is here.
Rajkishore Shukla Vs Asha Shukla on 22 September, 2015
No Shared household hence no DVC.
Citation:
Indiankanoon.org or Casemine link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/70402378/
The index page is here.
A.K. Srinivasa Rao and 3 Ors Vs State of AP on 19 January, 2015
Justice Shri Seetarama Murthi has delivered this judgment.
4. (f) Coming next to the contention that the learned Magistrate ought not to have taken the case on file against the present petitioners for the reason that the petitioners have no ‘domestic relationship’ and that they have never shared the household or lived together in a shared household with the 2nd respondent and her husband, it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions. Under Section 12 of the Act, an aggrieved person may present an application to the Magistrate seeking one or more reliefs under the Act.
Citation:
Indiankanoon.org or Casemine link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/173889445/
The index page is here.
Domestic Violence Judgments
Here is a list of Judgments under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 and various facets of violence/cruelty within Matrimonial relationships under various Statutes even before this Act. Life Cycle of a Domestic Violence case under PWDV Act 2005 here.
Bare Act (along with Statement of Objects and Reasons) is here and Rules are here. A 2-judge bench of Supreme Court passed guidelines to handle multiple maintenance litigation here.
1971-1980
- Narayan Ganesh Dastane Vs Sucheta Narayan Dastane on 19 March, 1975 [Definition of Mental Cruelty; Burden of Proof; Proof beyond reasonable doubt; Condonation of Cruelty]
1981-1990
1991-2000
- V.Bhagat Vs D.Bhagat on 19 November, 1993 [defined the meaning of Mental Cruelty with respect to Divorce petition]
2001-2005
- MS. Bhaskar Industries Ltd Vs MS. Bhiwani Denim and Apparels Ltd and Ors on 27 August 2001 [SC: Not a DV case but talks about Interlocutory Order]
2006-2010
- Lata Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another on 7 July, 2006 (Right to Marry a person of one’s choice)
- S.R. Batra and Anr Vs Taruna Batra on 15 December, 2006 (Supreme Court defined ‘Shared Household‘)
- Samar Ghosh vs Jaya Ghosh on 26 March, 2007 (Mental Cruelty defined)
- Abhijit Bhikaseth Auti Vs State Of Maharashtra and Anr on 16 September, 2008 [BomHC: Before granting an interim relief under sub-section 1, an opportunity of being heard is required to be granted to the respondent.]
- V.K.Vijayalekshmi Amma Vs Bindu V on 2 Dec 2009 ()
- Krishnamurthy Nookula Vs Savitha Y on 9 December, 2009 [KarHC: Audi Alterum Partem, Magistrate must conduct Inquiry in the nature of summary trial before Interim Maintenance]
- Vijay Verma Vs State NCT of Delhi and Anr on 13 August, 2010 (Delhi High Court)
- Jovita Olga Ignesia Mascarenhase Coutinho Vs Rajan Maria Coutinho and Anr on 24 Aug 2010 (BHC: Frame Issues after Hearing Both Parties)
- Rachna Kathuria Vs Ramesh Kathuria on 30 August, 2010 (DelHC: From my favorite judge but bad judgment; deny maintenance in DVC as there was maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC)
- Sharad Kumar Pandey Vs Mamta Pandey on 1 Sep 2010 [DelHC: Definition of Residence for Jurisdiction purpose]
- Hemlataben Maheshbhai Chauhan Vs State of Gujarat on 21 October, 2010 [GujHC: Since wife was already getting maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC, Court denied interim maintenance in DVC]
2011-2015
- Sandhya Manoj Wankhade Vs Manoj Bhimrao Wankhade and Ors on 31 January 2011 (Women can also be made respondents)
- Dhaval Rajendrabhai Soni Vs Bhavini Dhavalbhai Soni and Ors on 04 Feb 2011 [GHC: Custody cannot be given to non-custodial parents under DV Act; Only visitation permissible to non-custodial parent]
- Inderjit Singh Grewal Vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 23 August, 2011 (1 year limitation of 468 CrPC applies to DV Cases)
- V.D. Bhanot Vs Savita Bhanot on 07 February 2012 (DV Conduct of parties prior to PWDV Act are to be considered; Mental Cruelty)
- Buravilli Siva Madhuri Vs Sri Buravilli Satya Venkata Lakshmana Rao and Ors on 25 September, 2012 (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
- Deoki Panjhiyara Vs Shashi Bhushan Narayan Azad and Anr on 12 Dec 2012 [SC: Unless there is a declaration of nullity/void of the marriage by a competent Court or authority, a aggrieved person can take advantage of benefits under DV Act.]
- Ashish Dixit and Ors Vs State of U.P. and Anr on 7 January, 2013 (Quashing of false DVC on relatives of husband)
- Mewa Singh and others Vs Sukhjeet Kaur on 29 April 2013 (PHHC: appearance of respondents disposed off)
- Markapuram Siva Rao & Others Vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 30 April, 2013 (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
- Indra Sarma vs V.K.V.Sarma on 26 November, 2013 (SC: No relationship in the nature of marriage, no DV can apply, No maintenance)
- Kolli Babi Sarojini And Others Vs Kolli Jayalaxmi And Another on 29 April, 2014 (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
- Koushik Vs. Sau. Sangeeta Koushik Gharami & ors on 05 May 2014 [BomHC: No DV, No Reliefs; not even for children]
- Ayishabi Vs Shahul Hameed on 16 July, 2014 (KerHC: Dispose within 3 months)
- Santosh Sashkant Dhonde Vs Sarika Santosh Dhonde and Ors on 11 September, 2014 [BomHC: Hearing before Interim Orders]
- Chandra Sukanya Devi Vs Chandra Srinivasulu on 18 November, 2014 (JMFC Court, Ongole, Andhra Pradesh)
- A.K. Srinivasa Rao and 3 Ors Vs State of AP on 19 January, 2015 (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
- P.Sugunamma And Others Vs State Of A.P. on 19 January, 2015 (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
- Giduthuri Kesari Kumar And Others Vs State of Telangana on 16 February 2015 (APHC: 2 grounds for quashing a DV Case, No shared household, any other case dismissed on same allegations; overruled by SC in Prabha Tyagi here)
- Boddu Anjali and Anr Vs Boddu Annapoornamma and Ors on 17 June, 2015 [Ongole JCJC:]
- Gaddameedi Nagamani Vs The State Of Telangana on 17 July, 2015 (APHC: If any application is filed under Rule 37 of Criminal Rules of Practice or under Section 126(2) or Section 205 to represent through special vakalat or through advocate or for one to represent others as the case may be, the learned Magistrate shall entertain, hear and pass appropriate orders granting the same with necessary conditions)
- Rajkishore Shukla Vs Asha Shukla on 22 September, 2015 (Madhya Pradesh High Court)
- Krishna Bhatacharjee vs Sarathi Choudhury And Anr on 20 November, 2015 (Dipak Misra says, Judicially separated folks are also within the ambit of Aggrieved person)
2016-2020
- Kunapareddy @ Nookala Shanka Balaji Vs Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari On 18 April, 2016 (Court can allow amendments to complaint/petition, before cognizance of same is taken by Court)
- Prakash Nagardas Dubal-Shaha Vs Meena Prakash Dubal Shah and Ors on 22 April 2016 (Unsuccessful divorce proceedings cannot adversely affect the maintainability of DVC)
- Monojit Banerjee Vs Shalini Banerjee on 3 October, 2016 [KarHC: Hold an inquiry and then recorded finding as to grant interim relief or not]
- Hiral P Harsora and Ors Vs Kusum Narottamdas Harsora and Ors on October 6, 2016 [Supreme Court strikes down words ‘adult male‘ from the definition of Respondent u/s 2(q) and also the proviso to sec 2(q)]
- Dinesh Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P and Anr on 27 Oct 2016 [AllHC: A Revision under Section 397/401 of Cr P C against a judgment and order passed by the Court of Sessions under
Section 29 of the Act, 2005 is maintainable] - Yadlapalli Mary Mani Vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 21 December, 2016 (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
- Girish Kumar Suneja Vs CBI on 13 Jul 2017 [SC: Not a DV case but talks about final, intermediate and Interlocutory Orders]
- Manmohan Attavar Vs Neelam Manmohan Attavar on 14 July, 2017 (SC: ‘Domestic Relationship’ Necessary To Permit A Party To Occupy ‘Shared Household’)
- Kuppusamy Vs Radhika on 21 July, 2017 (MadHC: Dispose DVC in 2 months)
- Santineer Vincent Rajkumar Vs R.Rejitha on 3 August, 2017 (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
- Jallarapu Laxman Rao Vs Jallarapu Pedda Venkateswarlu on 1 November, 2017 (AP HC: No Revision u/s 397/401 CrPC, as Sec 29 PWDV Act provides Revision/Appeal)
- Sushila Devi Vs Vikas Kumar Singhal And Ors on 9 Feb 2018 (RajHC: Dispose within 2 months)
- S Vs J on 17 Apr 2018 (DHC: Frame issues after hearing both parties)
- Ashmin Kashmiri Vs Pushkar Kashmiri on 04 Jul 2018 (HPHC: No DV, No Reliefs; not even for children)
- Sabina Sahdev and Ors Vs Vidur Sahdev on 9 Jul 2018 [DHC: no pre-condition can be laid before receiving Appeal/Revision such as deposit maintenance amount]
- Lalita Toppo Vs State of Jharkhand on 30 October 2018 (Live-in partner can also file DV case)
- Shalu Ojha and Prashant Ojha case (File income affidavit as Prescribed in Kusum Sharma)
- Sangita Saha Vs Abhijit Saha and Ors on 28 January, 2019 (SC: No DV, No Reliefs)
- Upheld Abhijit Saha and Ors Vs Sangita Saha on 17 September, 2015 (CalHC: No DV, No Reliefs)
- Ajay Kumar Vs Lata @ Sharuti on 08 April 2019 (BIL pays interim maintenance)
- Tillottama Kumari Vs State of Bihar and Ors on 16 May 2019 (PatHC: Dispose DVC in 6 weeks)
- Kamlesh Devi Vs Jaipal and Ors on 04 Oct 2019 (SC: No allegations of domestic violence; No shared household)
- NS Leelavathi Vs R Shilpa Brunda on 11 December, 2019 (Karnataka High Court)
- Prakash Vinayak Gaikwad and Ors Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr on 13 Feb 2020 [BomHC: No Shared household, so no domestic relationship so no DVC maintainable on family members]
- N.Prasad Vs Harithalakshmi on 20 Jul 2020 (1 year limitation of 468 CrPC applies to DV Cases)
- Latha.P.C and Ors Vs State of Kerala and Ors on 15 Sep 2020 (482 CrPC against DVC is not maintainable; Magistrate u/s 28(2) can apply judicial mind of Preliminary objections)
- Satish Chander Ahuja Vs Sneha Ahuja on 15 Oct 2020 (SC: Overruled SR Batra judgment regd Shared Household concept; but also emphasized on the alternate accommodation)
- S.Vanitha Vs Deputy Commissioner on 15 Dec 2020 ()
2021-2025
- Dr.P.Pathmanathan and Ors Vs V.Monica and Anr on 18 Jan 2021 ()
- Masood Khan Vs. Millie Hazarika on 04 Mar 2021 (482 CrPC against DVC is maintainable as per Satish Chander)
- Maya and Ors Vs State of U.P. and Ors on 19 Mar 2021 (AllHC: Dispose DVC in 2 months)
- Puttaraju Vs Shivakumari on 01 Apr 2021 (MHC: Time limitation applies only for offence u/s 31 but not for the application u/s 12 of PWDV Act 2005)
- Robarto Nieddu Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr on 20 Nov 2021 (RajHC: non-citizen women residing in India temporarily also are classified as ‘aggrieved person’)
- Suyalaly and Anr Vs Alphin Jeyasingh and Ors on 29 Nov 2021 (MadHC: Dispose within 2 months)
- Ravneet Kaur Vs Prithpal Singh Dhingra on 24 Feb 2022 (DHC: Daughter-in-law can be evicted but an alternate accommodation must be provided)
- Nahida Rishad Cooper Vs Ali Daruwala and Ors on 25 Feb 2022 (BHC: Relatives who have no shared house-holding can also be respondents as per proviso to Sec 2(q))
- Ali Hamid Daruwala Vs Nahida Rishad Cooper and Anr on 28 Feb 2023 (BHC: Relying on Prabha Tyagi, BHC held that no shared householding requirement is necessary)
- Vani Santhosh Babu Vs Vijaya Laxmi Vani on 3 Mar 2022 (TelHC: Dispose in 60 days)
- Kamatchi Vs Lakshmi Narayanan on 13 Apr 2022 [SC: Limitation does not apply to Sec 12 applications under PWDV Act]
- Bharti Anand Vs Sushant Anand and Ors on 26 Apr 2022 [DelHC: Mere fleeting or casual visits/living, without permanency, at different places shall not make it a shared household]
- Prabha Tyagi Vs Kamlesh Devi on 12 May 2022 (SC: DIR is not mandatory; No shared holding required)
- Rajamma H Vs Thimmaiah V on 09 Jun 2022 (KarHC: Dispose DVC within 2 weeks)
- Mrugesh Wasnik Vs Shweta Mrugesh on 22 Jun 2022 (BomHC: Dispose DVC within 3 months)
- P Parvathi Vs Pathloth Mangamma on 7 Jul 2022 (TelHC: Directions issued regd appearance of respondents)
- Naresh Kumar Yalla Vs State of Telangana on 21 Jul 2022 (TelHC: Dispose DVC in 1 month)
- Altaf Ahmad Zargar and Anr Vs Sana Alias Ruksana and Anr on 02 Sep 2022 (JKHC: After WS, Magistrate may dismiss the DVC and cancel any interim orders passed)
- Ragimani Gangadhar Vs Ragimani Padmavathi and Anr on 08 Sep 2022 (APHC: Disclose previous maintenance cases)
- Sandeep Pamarati Vs State of AP and Anr on 29 Sep 2022 (APHC: My Own case: Disposal of DVC in 60 days)
- Afia Rasheed Khan Vs Mazharuddin Ali Khan and Anr on 10 Oct 2022 (SC: Upheld BHC Judgment stating casual visits/stays do not qualify as temporary stay/residence)
- S Anandanatesan Vs P Hemalatha on 23 Nov 2022 [MadHC: No DV, No Reliefs]
- Rajesh and Anr Vs Station House Officer and Ors on 05 Dec 2022 [KerHC: the existence of a domestic relationship between the complainant and the respondent is the sine qua non for seeking relief under the DV Act]
- Sunil Kumar and Ors Vs Elizabeth on 07 Feb 2023 [KarHC: Rental amount in lieu of accommodation in shared household can be given]
- Bhawna Vs Bhay Ram and Ors on 17 Feb 2023 [SC: No costs can be imposed on DV complainant for not proceeding with trial]
- Bhanu Kiran Vs Rahul Khosla and Ors on 28 Feb 2023 (PHHC: Interim Orders passed by Magistrate are appealable. Sessions Court can pass Interim Orders)
- Abhishek Agarwala and Anr Vs Smti Komal Poddar on 01 Mar 2023 (MegHC: Don’t insist on appearance of Respondents on each and every adjournment)
- Murlidhar Vs Sangita on 09 Mar 2023 [BomHC: No DV, No Reliefs]
- Kavitha M Vs Raghu on 16 Mar 2023 [KarHC: No need to conduct Inquiry in the nature of summary trial before passing Interim reliefs; Over rules Krishnamurthy Nookula Vs Savitha Y on 9 December, 2009]
- Sumeet Vs Himani Sumeet Ninave Nee on 29 Mar 2023 [BomHC: DV allegedly committed outside India can also be tried by Indian Courts]
- Sharnavva @Kasturi Vs Shivappa on 18 Apr 2023 [KarHC: No Strict proof of marriage required; No validity of marriage to be checked]
- Jaspal Kaur alias Pinki and Ors Vs State of Punjab and Anr on 24 Apr 2023 [Relies on Kunapareddy, Kamatchi, ]
- Sanjeev Kumar and Ors Vs Sushma Devi on 01 Jun 2023 [HimHC: Frame Issues after Hearing Both Parties]
- Rangesh Srinivasan Vs Madhulika Bawa on 07 Jun 2023 [DelHC: Stay on Interim Maintenance Order without any pre-condition; relied on Sabina Sahdev and Ors Vs Vidur Sahdev on 9 Jul 2018]
- Shilpashree J.M. Vs Gurumanjunatha .A.S. on 19 Jun 2023 [KarHC: No maintenance to idle sitting wife]
- Mummireddygari Prathap Reddy and Ors Vs Mummireddygari Srivani and Ors on 17 Jul 2023 [APHC: No Shared household, so no domestic relationship so no DVC maintainable on family members]
- Dhananjay Mohan Zombade Vs Prachi Dhananjay Zombade on 18 Jul 2023 [BomHC: No Shared household, so no domestic relationship so no DVC maintainable]
- Ashwini Pradhan Vs UOI and Anr on 08 Aug 2023 [MPHC: Sections 21 and 31 of PWDV Act are not unconstitutional]
- M.R.Somasundaram and Ors Vs B Rahini and Anr on 12 Dec 2023 [MadHC: Approach the Magistrate Court itself and raise the issue of maintainability and other preliminary issues]
- Mohammed Yasin Naikwadi Vs Aneesa and Anr on 13 Dec 2023 [KarHC: A protection order under DV Act does not include the order of granting monetary relief of maintenance under Section 20 of the D.V. Act]
- Kinjal Jayesh Mehta Vs Disha Jimit Sanghvi and Anr on 14 Feb 2024 [BomHC: Mere casual visits of the Petitioner to the shared household being devoid of any permanency is not sufficient and adequate to constitute residence in shared household]
- Kiran Jyot Maini Vs Anish Pramod Patel on 15 Jul 2024 [Interim Maintenance granted]
- Palaparthi Shebha and Anr Vs State of AP and Anr on 16 Jul 2024 [APHC: Interim maintenance order is made effective from the date of petition and not from date of Order]
- Shikha Lall Vs Prince Agarwal on 7 Nov 2024 [DelHC: Never resided in New Delhi so no jurisdiction under DV Act]
- Krishnawati Devi and 6 Ors Vs State of UP and Anr on 22 Jan 2025 [AllHC: No Shared household, so no domestic relationship so no DVC maintainable on family members; Verify shared household condition satisfied or not before issuing notices; Dispose within 60 days]
- Kalavakuru Srinivas Kumar Reddy Vs Kalavakuru @ Revuru Sujatha and Ors on 05 Feb 2025 [APHC: Follow Rajnesh Vs Neha]
- Geddam Jhansi and Anr Vs State of Telangana and Anr on 07 Feb 2025 [SC: DVC proceedings quash for same allegations under Article 142 of Constitution]
- Vishal Shah Vs Monalisha Gupta and Ors on 20 Feb 2025 [SC: there is no requirement for the personal presence/appearance of any party in the proceedings under the DV Act, because they are quasi-criminal in nature and do not entail any penal consequences]
- Srinivasa D Vs Asha on 20 Mar 2025 [Landmark judgment to rectify baseless Orders of maintenance by Family Court judges in Karnataka]
- Abhijit Ankush Shelke and Ors Vs Shubhangi Abhijit Shelke and Anr on 09 May 2025 [SC: Voice sample may be compelled as per Sec 28(2) of PWDV Act and Article 20(3) will not apply]
- Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi Vs Vidhi Rawal on 19 May 2025 [SC: High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash proceedings of an application under Section 12(1) or orders passed in accordance with Sections 18 to 23 of the DV Act, 2005]
2026-2030
- Deepak Gangadhar Dadge Vs Vijaya and Anr on 17 Jan 2026 [BHC: No suo moto perjury proceedings initiated]
- Mariya Zafar and Anr Vs State of UP and Anr on 31 Mar 2026
- Rani Bibi Vs Sk Nurullah and Ors on 8 Dec 2025 [CalHC : A wife can file a DV Act case from her temporary residence]
- Dinesh kumar Vs Neeti and Ors on 4 Apr 2026
- Pranjal Poddar and Ors Vs Shivani Gupta on 21 Apr 2026 [AllHC: DVC Quashed against relatives other than husband]
- Ravi S Vs Sahana Devi A and Ors on 18 Jun 2026 [KarHC: Interim Maintenance to wife set aside as she is having more income than husband]
MASTER SITEMAP here.
