Another one of those ex parte DVC dole outs to Knife.
Author: ShadesOfKnife
Kondrajula @ Syed Saroja Vs Syed Malik on 20 February, 2013
This DVC is dismissed due to this.
Coming to the aspect of dowry harassment of P.w.1 in the hands of respondent, as the very performance of marriage between P.w.1 and respondent is not proved by P.w.1 and further even P.w.1 failed to prove that both of them lived together under one roof, I am of the opinion that there is no need to discuss anything more with regard to demand of dowry and harassment of P.w.1 in the hands of respondent.
Yanamala Srilakshmi Vs Late Yanamala Ravi @ Ravindra on 14 February, 2018
Read Para 10 to know the arbitrary way Protection order is granted solely by the deposition of Knife, wherein husband is long dead to challenge it.
Now coming to the relief sought by the petitioner that is pertaining to maintenance and residential
orders, the allegation against the respondent as per P.W1 is that the respondent started harassing P.W1. On this aspect P.w1 elaborately deposed that about the harassment of R1 to R3 in her evidence. At one instance she and her child also confined in a room and not provided with food. After seven or eight days her parents came and saved their life. Subsequently she was treated by the parents now she is depending upon her parents mercy. Further coming to the aspect of Protection orders in view of above discussion, it is clear that the petitioner is entitled for Protection order.
Kasukurthy Vijaya Kumari Vs Kasukurthy Bhaskar Subbarao on 6 August, 2013
One nice point raised by the Hon’ble judge in this order
Further it is admitted by P.w.1 and P.w.3 that R.2 who is a retired court employee has deposited Rs.2,25,000/- jointly in the name of P.w.1 and R.w.1 and also Rs.2,25,000/- in the name of younger brother of R.1, if that is so, where is the need for R.2 to harass P.w.1 to bring additional dowry along with R.1, R.3 to R.5, if really R.1 to R.5 harassed P.w.1 demanding P.w.1 to bring additional dowry, there is no need and necessity for R.2 to deposit Rs.2,25,000/- in the joint name of P.w.1 and R.w.1 from out of his retired benefits.
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
Shaik Khasim Bi Vs Shaik Nagur Basha on 5 August, 2014
Maintenance is allowed in this judgment.
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
Rabiya Bi Kassim M. Vs The Country Wide Consumer on 5 April, 2004
In it held in this judgment from High Court of Karnataka that once arguments are completed and judgment is reserved for pronouncement for a future date, no new application of any nature can be allow by the Hon’ble Trial court.
The Sub-rule(4) of Order 18, Rule 2 reads as follows, that came into force in 1976 via Amendment Act, has been deleted via the CPC Amendment Act 1999, with effect from 1.7.2002
“(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Rule, the Court may, for reasons to be recorded, direct or permit any party to examine any witness at any stage”
The 1963 landmark judgment is here.
Arjun Singh Vs Mohindra Kumar & Ors on 13 December, 1963
The Hon’ble Apex Court has explained the following in this landmark judgment
- ‘principle of res judicata’
- difference between words “good cause” for nonappearance in O. IX, r. 7 and “sufficient cause” for the same purpose in O. IX, r. 13
- ‘res judicata’ could be as much applicable to different stages of the same suit as to findings on issues in different suits.
- If the entirety of the “hearing” of a suit has been completed and the Court being competent to pronounce judgment then and there, adjourns the suit merely for the purpose of pronouncing judgment under O. XX, r. 1, there is clearly no adjournment of “the hearing” of the suit, for there is nothing more to be heard in the suit.
- ln the present context when once the hearing starts, the Code contemplates only two stages in the trial of the suit:
- (1) Where the hearing is adjourned or
- (2) where the hearing is completed. Where the hearing is completed the parties have no further rights or privileges in the matter and it is only for the convenience of the Court that O. XX, r. 1 permits judgment to be delivered after an interval after the hearing is completed.
Sub-Inspector of Police Vs Velpula Venkata Rao on 11 July, 2017
Here is the acquittal judgment related to this DVC here.
Markapuram Siva Rao and Ors Vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 30 April, 2013
Important Quash Judgment for Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh.
All 6 (out of total 7 respondents) in this DVC are freed by quashing the DVC proceedings initiated on them as the allegations are replica of those made in IPC 498A Case and moreover the allegations are vague and general in nature.
Observation by Hon’ble Judge:
The allegations made in the said report are verbatim identical with the report lodged with the Project Officer. It appears that a report was prepared and copies of which were sent to police station and Project Officer.
Citation:
Indiankanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/160109228/
The index page is here.
