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

Author: ShadesOfKnife

U.Suvetha Vs State By Insp.Of Police & Anr on 6 May, 2009

Posted on July 23, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that, a concubine is not a relative to the husband of the knife, with regards to IPC 498A.

The word ‘cruelty” having been defined in terms of the aforesaid explanation, no other meaning can be attributed thereto. Living with another woman may be an act of cruelty on the part of the husband for the purpose of judicial separation or dissolution of marriage but the same, in our opinion, would not attract the wrath of Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

Meaning or definition of “relative”:

In the absence of any statutory definition, the term ‘relative’ must be assigned a meaning as is commonly understood. Ordinarily it would include father, mother, husband or wife, son, daughter, brother, sister, nephew or niece, grandson or grand-daughter of an individual or the spouse of any person. The meaning of the word ‘relative’ would depend upon the nature of the statute. It principally includes a person related by blood, marriage or
adoption.

The word ‘relative’ has been defined in P. Ramanatha Aiyar Advanced Law Lexicon – Volume 4, 3rd Edition as under :-
“Relative, “RELATIVE” includes any person related by blood, marriage or adoption. [Lunacy Act ].
The expression “RELATIVE” means a husband wife, ancestor, lineal descendant, brother or sister. [Estate Duty Act].

“RELATIVE” means in relation to the deceased,
a) the wife or husband of the deceased;
b) the father, mother, children, uncles and aunts of the deceased, and
c) any issue of any person falling, within either of the preceding sub-clauses and the other party to a marriage with any such person or issue [Estate Duty Act].
A person shall be deemed to be a relative of another if, and only if, –
a) they are the members of a Hindu undivided family, or
b) they are husband and wife; or
c) the one is related to the other in the manner indicated in Schedule I-A [Companies Act, 1956].

“RELATIVE” in relation to an individual means –
a) The mother, father, husband or wife of the individual, or
b) a son, daughter, brother, sister, nephew or niece of the individual, or
c) a grandson or grand-daughter of the individual, or
d) the spouse of any person referred to in subclause (b) [Income tax Act].

“RELATIVE” means –
1) spouse of the person ;
2) brother or sister of the person ;
3) brother or sister of the spouse of the person;
4) any lineal ascendant or descendant of the person;
5) any lineal ascendant or descendant of the spouse of the person; [Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act].”

From Para 18,

By no stretch of imagination a girl friend or even a concubine in an etymological sense would be a ‘relative’. The word ‘relative’ brings within its purview a status. Such a status must be conferred either by blood or marriage or adoption. If no marriage has taken place, the question of one being relative of another would not arise.

U.Suvetha Vs State By Insp.Of Police & Anr on 6 May, 2009

Citations: [2009 ACC 67 903], [2009 SCC 6 787], [2009 SCC CRI 3 36], [2009 AIR SC 0 3491], [2009 SUPREME 3 797], [2009 RCR CRI 2 923], [2009 SCC 6 757], [2009 KERLT 2 686], [2009 MLJ CRI 2 1079], [2009 DMC 1 887], [2009 SLT 4 462], [2009 CUTLT SUPPL 1126], [2009 AIOL 675], [2009 AIR SC 1451], [2009 ANJ SC 2 16], [2009 BOMCR CRI SC 3 845], [2009 CRIMES SC 2 357], [2009 JT 7 222], [2009 SCALE 7 149], [2009 SCR 7 902], [2009 AIR SCW 3491], [2009 CRLJ SC 2974]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/953117/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609aec9e4b0149711414c47

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision IPC 498a - Not Made Out Is Not Relative Of Husband Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Reportable Judgement or Order U.Suvetha Vs State By Insp.Of Police and Anr | Leave a comment

Ramnaresh & Ors Vs State of M.P. on 14 June, 2016

Posted on July 23, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh held that

Therefore, it is absolutely essential for the Trial Court to summarily state the “basis” on which it forms an opinion justifying the framing of charges against an accused. This can be done without giving“Reasons”, elaborate or otherwise and it would suffice if the Trial Court refers to the evidence on record without any elaboration of its contents. Statements of witnesses can be referred to by the name of the witness without discussing the contents of the statements or how the same prima facie implicates the accused.

Ramnaresh & Ors Vs State of M.P. on 14 June, 2016

Index of Discharge Judgments u/s 227 Cr.P.C. is here.

Posted in High Court of Madhya Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Filing Of Chargesheet Does Not Justify Framing Of Charges Ramnaresh and Ors Vs State of M.P. | Leave a comment

Nandini Bhatnagar Vs State Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi on 14 December, 2012

Posted on July 23, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Hon’ble Delhi High Court held that, “It is settled law that right to travel is a facet of personal liberty and is protected by Article 21 of the Constitution of India. (See Maneka Gandhi Vs. Union of India & Anr., (1978) 1 SCC 248 and Satwant Singh Sawhney Vs. D. Ramarathnam, Assistant Passport Officer, Government of India, New Delhi & Ors., AIR 1976 SC 1836).”

13. This Court is also of the opinion that if the impugned condition imposed by the
Additional Sessions Judge is not immediately set aside, the petitioner in the near future
could lose her job.
14. Moreover, in the opinion of this Court, petitioner who is having no criminal
antecedents and good academic qualifications is unlikely to abscond.
15. Consequently, present petition is allowed and the condition imposed by the impugned
order dated 06th October, 2012 restraining the petitioner from leaving the boundary of
the NCT of Delhi as well as the NCR and the country without the prior permission of the
Court of Metropolitan Magistrate is set aside.
16. The SHO/Investigating Officer is directed to release the petitioner’s passport forthwith.

 

Nandini Bhatnagar Vs State Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi on 14 December, 2012
Posted in High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty Courts Can Not Impound Passport Nandini Bhatnagar Vs State Govt. Of NCT Of Delhi Return The Passport To Accused Right to Travel | Leave a comment

Shreyas Sharma Vs State Of Karnataka on 22 September, 2014

Posted on July 23, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in this order has held that

In this particular case, admittedly the police have not seized the Passport during the course of investigation. But at the time of granting bail the court has secured the Passport and kept it in the safe custody of the court and it amounts to retention of the said document and virtually amounts to impounding of the said document, which is prohibited under the above said provision of law and also in view of the decision of the Apex Court.

Shreyas Sharma Vs State Of Karnataka on 22 September, 2014
Posted in High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged CrPC 482 - Saving of inherent powers of High Court CrPC Sec 438 - Anticipatory Bail Granted No Passport Surrender Condition Shreyas Sharma Vs State Of Karnataka | Leave a comment

Sumit Kumar Vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 April, 2016

Posted on July 23, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Very good judgment from Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh. wherein Anticipatory Bail was granted but did not put condition to surrender passport.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he has filed documents of ICICI Bank in order to demonstrate that far from demanding dowry from Jaya Sharma, he had, in fact, transferred about Rs. 1,00,000/- in the name of Alka Sharma, the mother of the victim, during the period between 16-04-2015 and 04-07-2014.

The petitioner has also filed numerous photographs of the estranged couple taken on various occasions in U.S., portraying perfect picture of marital bliss and harmony.

Documents and copies of E-mail have also been filed for showing that the petitioner took keen interest in victim Jaya’s career as a dentist in U.S. and arranged for her studies and her attendance in various dental clinics.

It has also been contended that as per application submitted by the victim the petitioner earns approximately Rs.2,00,00,000/- in U.S. In such a situation, the allegation that he demanded Rs.10,00,000/- in dowry from the mother of the victim, who is a widow, is ridiculous.

Sumit Kumar Vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 28 April, 2016

 

Posted in High Court of Madhya Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged CrPC Sec 438 - Anticipatory Bail Granted No Passport Surrender Condition Sumit Kumar Vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh | Leave a comment

Krishna Munivenkatappa Vs Union Of India on 27 April, 2017

Posted on July 23, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Not sure, what kind of judgment is this… Read and bare with it.

 

Krishna Munivenkatappa Vs Union Of India on 27 April, 2017
Posted in High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Article 226 - Power of High Courts to issue certain writs Krishna Munivenkatappa Vs Union Of India Obligation To Record Reasons For Impounding | Leave a comment

Anand Tewari Vs Union Of India & Ors, on 18 September, 2013

Posted on July 23, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

In this judgment from Hon’ble High Court of Delhi, Writ Petition is allowed and the Passport Authority is ordered to re-consider the request of petitioner.

From Para 8,

The plea in the counter affidavit filed in W.P(C) No.3885/2013 is that the passport of the petitioner in the said case was impounded under clause (c) and (e) of sub section 3 of Section 10 of the Passport Act. However, the show cause notice dated 14.3.2012 contains absolutely no reference to clause (c) of the said sub section. Moreover, there is no mention in the said notice that it was necessary to impound the passport in the interest of sovereignty and integrity of India, security of India, friendly relations of India with any foreign country or in the interest of the general public. The only reason given in the show cause notice dated 14.3.2012 for the proposed revocation receipt of information report from CBI regarding registration of a criminal case against the passport holder. In fact, these communications sent by the Regional Passport Office to the petitioners do not contain any such averment and the only reason given for impounding the passport was the adverse recommendation of CBI in connection with a criminal case registered by it. Therefore, it would not be correct to say that the passports were impounded under clause (c) of sub section 3 of Section 10 of the Passport Act, 1967.

From Para 9,

As regards the applicability of sub clause (b), the counter affidavit is conspicuously silent as to the material information, if any, suppressed or the written information, if any, provided by the passport holder while applying for issue of passport. There is no reference to clause (b) of sub section (3) in the reasons conveyed to the petitioners. There is no averment in the said communication that the passport was obtained by suppressing the material information or providing wrong information. In the communicated dated 5.9.2012, which was dispatched only on 7.1.2013, as is evident from the postal stamp appearing on the communication, there is a reference to an adverse police verification report, but admittedly, no such report was provided to the passport holders at any point of time, nor did the communication referred to any suppression of material information or furnishing of wrong information at the time of obtaining the passport. More importantly, the passports according to the respondents were impounded vide circular dated 14.9.2012, whereas the communication dated 5.9.2012 was dispatched to the petitioners only on 7.1.2013. Therefore, the said communication dated 5.9.2012 in any case could not have been the basis for impounding the passport.

From Para 11,

Admittedly, no opportunity of personal hearing was given to the petitioners before this Court despite their having duly replied to the show cause notice. In my view, the show cause notices issued to the petitioners should have been followed by an opportunity of personal hearing to them. No such hearing, however, was given to them either before or after passing the order impounding their passports. This is yet another reason why the impugned order dated 14.9.2012 cannot be sustained.

Very important point from para 13,

Clause (e) of Section 10 (3) applies only if the proceedings in respect of an offence alleged to have been committed by the passport holder are pending before a criminal court at the time the passport is revoked/ impounded. Mere registration of a criminal case against a person does not amount to proceedings being pending against him before a criminal court. The proceedings can be said to be pending only when a charge-sheet is filed. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the respondents placed on record a communication dated 4.9.2013 received from CBI which shows that a charge-sheet against Mr. Anand Tewari and P.K. Tewari, the petitioners in W.P(C) Nos. 3885/2013 and 5153/2013 has been filed in the Court on 23.8.2013 whereas the remaining cases are still pending investigation. Thus, no charge-sheet has yet been filed against Mr. Abhishek Tewari, petitioner in W.P (C) No.5155/2013 and no charge-sheet either against Mr. P.K. Tewari or against Abhishek Tewari had been filed by the time their passports were impounded vide order dated 14.9.2012. The passports, therefore, could not have been impounded prior to 23.8.2013, when the charge sheet was filed. In fact, in Abhijit Sen Vs. Superintendent (Administration) Regional Passport Officer & Ors. 2004 Cri LJ 1281, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court was of the view that the criminal proceedings in terms of clause (e) can be said to be pending only from the date on which cognizance is taken, by the Court, after filing of a charge sheet.

Anand Tewari Vs Union Of India & Ors, on 18 September, 2013
Posted in High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Anand Tewari Vs Union Of India and Ors Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Obligation To Record Reasons For Impounding | Leave a comment

N.Chandrababu Vs The Sub Inspector of Police on 21 April, 2017

Posted on July 23, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

In this judgment from Hon’ble High Court of Madras, Writ Petition is allowed and the Passport Authority is ordered to re-consider the request of petitioner.

N.Chandrababu Vs The Sub Inspector of Police on 21 April, 2017
Posted in High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Article 226 - Power of High Courts to issue certain writs N.Chandrababu Vs The Sub Inspector of Police Obligation To Record Reasons For Impounding Writ Petition Of Certiorary | Leave a comment

Suresh Rajan Vs The Passport Officer on 30 October, 2017

Posted on July 23, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

In this judgment from Hon’ble High Court of Madras, Writ Petition is allowed and the Passport Authority is ordered to re-consider the request of petitioner.

 

Suresh Rajan Vs The Passport Officer on 30 October, 2017
Posted in High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Article 226 - Power of High Courts to issue certain writs Obligation To Record Reasons For Impounding Suresh Rajan Vs The Passport Officer Writ Petition Of Certiorary | Leave a comment

Kakulamarri Kalyan Srinivasa Rao Vs CBI on 12 May, 2017

Posted on July 23, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Hon’ble High Court of Madras in this straightforward judgment, set aside the condition to surrender the petitioner’s passport

From Para 3,

The petitioner is aggrieved against the condition made therein whereby he was directed to surrender his passport before the Court and was directed, not to leave the country without prior permission of the Court.

From Para 5,

The legal question as to whether the police are empowered to retain the passport of an accused under the provisions of Cr.P.C., has come time and again before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various other Courts and it has been held that the Courts exercising its power under the Cr.P.C., cannot impound the passport under the guise of seizure.

From Para 8,

The objections raised by the learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI Cases may not be of much relevance since what would be pertinent to decide in the present petition is the powers of police to retain the passport of the petitioner. The Passport Act which is a Special law will prevail over the provisions of the Cr.p.c., the General law.

From Para 9,

Section 10(3)(e) of the Passport Act specifically deals with impounding of passport whereas Section 104 Cr.P.C., allows the Court to impound the document to produce before the Court. The Passport Act overrides the provision of Cr.P.C., for the purpose of impounding passport. In the present case in hand, the order directing to surrender the passport indefinitely amounts to impounding of the passport itself.

Kakulamarri Kalyan Srinivasa Rao Vs CBI on 12 May, 2017
Posted in High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Courts Can Not Impound Passport Kakulamarri Kalyan Srinivasa Rao Vs CBI Only Passport Authority Can Impound Passport Return The Passport To Accused | Leave a comment

Post navigation

  • Older posts
  • Newer 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
thebetterindia

The Better India

Verified account @thebetterindia ·
9 Oct

What can a tiny green alga teach us about the human brain?

In 2001, Indian researcher Suneel Kateriya was working in a German laboratory, trying to understand how a single-celled alga senses light.

His search led to the discovery of light-sensitive proteins that would help

Reply on Twitter 2108422816089718799 Retweet on Twitter 2108422816089718799 5 Like on Twitter 2108422816089718799 25 X 2108422816089718799
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
jyotikarma7

JyotiKarma🚩🇮🇳

Verified account @jyotikarma7 ·
9 Oct

Navratri ke 9 din ...Devi's 9 roop, depicted so well!

Reply on Twitter 2108417383584891282 Retweet on Twitter 2108417383584891282 163 Like on Twitter 2108417383584891282 781 X 2108417383584891282
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
shree_2_2

श्री

Verified account @shree_2_2 ·
18h

Action plan for nationalists 🇮🇳

Reply on Twitter 2108580123264135317 Retweet on Twitter 2108580123264135317 1062 Like on Twitter 2108580123264135317 3446 X 2108580123264135317
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
himantabiswa

Himanta Biswa Sarma

Verified account @himantabiswa ·
9 Oct

Maa will steer Bharat forward, come what may.

Reply on Twitter 2108399555129544844 Retweet on Twitter 2108399555129544844 4017 Like on Twitter 2108399555129544844 28511 X 2108399555129544844

Recent Posts

  • When did Anantapur become Ananthapuramu? October 9, 2026
  • Supreme Court: PF and employee share-plan deductions cannot shrink the income used to assess child maintenance September 29, 2026
  • Pradeep Ram Vs State of Jharkhand and Anr on 1 Jul 2019 September 24, 2026
  • Video Conferencing Links of District Judiciary of Andhra Pradesh September 24, 2026
  • Practical Solutions Inc Vs State of Telangana and Ors on 19 Jan 2026 September 24, 2026

Most Read Posts

  • How Courts Quash Omnibus Allegations in Matrimonial FIRs - Case Study (1,591 views)
  • Parvinder Singh Khurana Vs Enforcement of Directorate on 19 May 2026 (1,199 views)
  • Application for Exemption from Personal Appearance During Investigation – Format, Procedure & Sample Draft (1,086 views)
  • Application for Modification of Bail Conditions – Format, Procedure & Sample Draft (962 views)
  • Myth vs Reality: Bail in 498A Cases – Legal Position Explained (940 views)
  • Exemption Application Under Section 205 CrPC – Format, Procedure & Sample Draft (901 views)
  • Representation for Deletion of Name from FIR – Format, Procedure & Sample Draft (892 views)
  • Pune Bar Association Vs Union of India on 22 May 2026 (821 views)
  • Life Cycle Stages of a Criminal Writ Petition Before a High Court (777 views)
  • Dr. Garima Dubey and Ors Vs Dr. Saurabh Anand Dubey on 21 Apr 2026 - Judgement Summary (740 views)

Tags

Reportable Judgement or Order (446)2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision (431)Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes (389)Landmark Case (387)1-Judge Bench Decision (376)Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to (302)Work-In-Progress Article (215)3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision (102)Sandeep Pamarati (92)Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty (80)Issued or Recommended Guidelines or Directions or Protocols to be followed (72)Perjury Under Section 340 CrPC (71)Absurd Or After Thought Or Baseless Or False Or General Or Inherently Improbable Or Improved Or UnSpecific Or Omnibus Or Vague Allegations (62)Reprimands or Setbacks to YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh (49)Summary Post (47)CrPC 482 - Quash (44)CrPC 125 or BNSS 144 - Order for Maintenance of Wives Children and Parents (43)Abuse Or Misuse of Process of Court (43)HM Act Sec 13 - Divorce Granted to Husband (42)Divorce Granted on Cruelty ground (42)

Categories

Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification (767)Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments (329)High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (190)High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification (167)High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification (112)High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification (95)Legal Procedure (85)High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification (71)High Court of Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification (63)LLB Study Material (60)General Study Material (56)Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications (54)High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification (53)High Court of Kerala Judgment or Order or Notification (48)Judicial Activism (for Public Benefit) (47)Prakasam DV Cases (46)District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification (44)High Court of Madhya Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (38)High Court of Telangana Judgment or Order or Notification (29)High Court of Calcutta Judgment or Order or Notification (28)

Recent Comments

  • ShadesOfKnife on How to Challenge Ex Parte Orders in Criminal and Matrimonial Proceedings – Legal Remedies
  • pradeep jain on How to Challenge Ex Parte Orders in Criminal and Matrimonial Proceedings – Legal Remedies
  • Lawyer Sonia on Regular Bail Application Format (Section 437/439 CrPC)
  • vinod gupta on Reply to Section 41A CrPC Notice – Format with Legal Explanation
  • eCourts India on Compromise-Based Quashing in Matrimonial Cases – Complete Legal Strategy

Archives of SoK

  • October 2026 (1)
  • September 2026 (13)
  • August 2026 (6)
  • July 2026 (19)
  • June 2026 (19)
  • May 2026 (24)
  • April 2026 (33)
  • March 2026 (42)
  • February 2026 (30)
  • January 2026 (21)
  • December 2025 (2)
  • November 2025 (3)
  • October 2025 (17)
  • September 2025 (12)
  • August 2025 (5)
  • July 2025 (10)
  • June 2025 (15)
  • 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 feed: Cloudflare Status Cloudflare Status

  • KTM (Kathmandu) on 2026-11-02 November 2, 2026
    Oct 8, 16:40 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in KTM (Kathmandu) datacenter between 2026-11-02 21:00 and 2026-11-03 01:00 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 in the affected region. For PNI / CNI customers […]
    Cloudflare Status

RSS feed: List of Spam Server IPs from Project Honeypot List of Spam Server IPs from Project Honeypot

  • 34.138.194.204 | S October 9, 2026
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 2 | First: 2026-10-09 | Last: 2026-10-09
Owned and Operated by Advocate Sandeep Pamarati and Advocate Suprajaa Rajan
Proudly powered by WordPress
Theme: Flint by Star Verte LLC

Bad Behavior has blocked 756 access attempts in the last 7 days.

pixel