Shaik Noorjahan Vs Shaik Dilshad Begam on 28 April, 2015

Posted on July 3, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Classic case of Knife falsifying in court to grab monies from her mother-in-law. Hon’ble court held that no Shared household proved so no DV and hence dismissed the false petition.

From Para 11,

Now the point that is to be determined, whether the petitioner being daughter-in-law of respondent suffered violence as mentioned under the act by the respondent. On this aspect, the petitioner though stated rivalry stating that the respondent and her daughter harassed her physically and mentally for want of additional dowry, coming to her chief examination itself it is admitted by her that on 30.03.2010 her husband died due to ill-health, after the death of her husband when she went to her in-law’s house along with her children, the respondent did not allow her into the house, which means, it is clear that she has been residing separately along with her husband away from the house of respondent. Moreover coming to the cross-examination of P.w.2, it is admitted by him that his daughter and son-in-law used to reside separately in a separate house on rent basis and the intimation about the death of his son-in-law was informed to his mother by the owner of the house in which his daughter and her husband resided. So, from the above admissions itself it is clear that the petitioner and her husband resided separately from the respondent. So, the concept of shared house hold does not arise as it is admitted by petitioner that the petitioner resided separately from the respondent. Moreover on this aspect this Court inclined to rely upon the Judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.R.Batra and Another V. Smt. Taruna Batra (AIR 2007 S.C. 1118 and 1119), in Neetu Mittal V. Kanta Mittal and Others (AIR 2009 DELHI 72 and 72) and in Umesh Sharma V. State (AIR 2010 (NOC) 515 (DEL.).

Shaik Noorjahan Vs Shaik Dilshad Begam on 28 April, 2015

Shumita Didi Sandhu Vs Sanjay Singh Sandhu & Others on 26 October, 2010

Posted on July 3, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

The Division Bench of Hon’ble Delhi High Court has produced this judgment which held that the right of residence of a woman in the property on which her husband has right, title or interest that the wife can claim residence and that, too, if no commensurate alternative is provided by the husband.

Shumita Didi Sandhu Vs Sanjay Singh Sandhu & Others on 26 October, 2010

Ravuri Venkata Lakshmi Mahathi Vs Ravuri Venkata Durga Butchi Rajeswararao on 22 April, 2016

Posted on July 2, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Read this judgment to understand how the biased judges give liberal reliefs using gender-biased laws such as PWDV Act. In the process wrongly interpret the Delhi High Court judgment, wherein in reality High Court has declined giving maintenance to unscrupulous knife, our judge in this present case understood and interpreted it totally wrongly and to suit the Knife.

Ravuri Venkata Lakshmi Mahathi Vs Ravuri Venkata Durga Butchi Rajeswararao on 22 April, 2016

The judgment cited in this order and wrongly interpreted is available here.

Madhala Sujatha Vs Madhala Srinivasulu on 8 June, 2015

Posted on July 1, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Interesting points in this case of DV.

PW1 has deposed in her chief examination that at the time of her marriage her parents have given cash of Rs.1,81,000/- and gold ornaments weighing 20 sovereigns to the respondent no.1. PW1 has stated during the course of her cross-examination that the said cash and gold ornaments were handed over to the respondents at their(petitioner) house about 10 days prior to her marriage. PW2 has stated during the course of his cross-examination that the parents of PW1 have given cash of Rs.1,81,000/-, gold ornaments weighing 21 sovereigns to RW1 and his parents at the time performing marriage of PW1 and RW1. Therefore, there is inconsistency in the evidence of PW1 itself and also in the evidence of PW1 and PW2 regarding the time and occasion of presentation of alleged dowry to RW1 and his parents by her parents.

There is no evidence of PW1 before this Court that any cash of Rs.20,000/- was given to the respondents for purchasing cloths.

PW1 has also stated during the course of her cross-examination that there are bills to show that the gold ornaments weighing 21 sovereigns that were presented to the respondents were purchased by her parents. The alleged bills are not produced before this Court to show that that the alleged gold ornaments were purchased by the parents of PW1 immediately, prior to or at the time of marriage of PW1 with RW1. The parents of PW1 are not even examined on the side of the petitioner to prove the alleged presentation of dowry of cash and gold ornaments to RW1 and
his parents. The evidence of PW2 also do not reveal that the alleged dowry was presented by the parents of PW1 to RW1 and his parents in his presence. Therefore, it is held that the petitioner has failed to substantiate her contention that the alleged dowry was presented by her parents to RW1 and his parents in her marriage.

Madhala Sujatha Vs Madhala Srinivasulu on 8 June, 2015

Chavala Kalpana Vs Chavala Audilakshmi on 5 May, 2015

Posted on July 1, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

In this case, Knife obtained reliefs of Protection order, Residence order and return of cash and gold ornaments from the mother-in-law.

From Para 13,

However, in the instant case it has been brought on the record of the case during the course of cross-examination of the respondent that the said two portioned house was constructed with the earnings of the husband of the respondent. PW2 is the only son of her parents. When the said two portioned house has been constructed out of the earnings of the husband of the respondent and father of PW2 then certainly the said house cannot be said to a self acquired property of the respondent, and that the said house acquires the status of the joint family property in which PW2 is a member. The said admission by the respondent regarding the nature of the said house is the best evidence to conclude that the said house is a joint family property and it a shared house holds. The readiness expressed by RW1 during the course of her cross-examination to give one of the portions of the house to PW1 and PW2 for their residence implies that the respondent is also acknowledgment the right of residence of PW1 in the said house.

Chavala Kalpana Vs Chavala Audilakshmi on 5 May, 2015

Shaik Shakheela Vs Shaik Mahamad Rafi on 22 September, 2017

Posted on July 1, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This is another ex parte order in the DV Case. Since there is no challenge to the averments of the Knife in the petition, Judge liberally allows reliefs.

Shaik Shakheela Vs Shaik Mahamad Rafi on 22 September, 2017

Shaik Haseena Vs Md. Karimulla on 29 June, 2016

Posted on June 30, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This case deals with economic abuse aspect of Domestic Violence Act.

From Para 21,

Though she deposed the above allegations in the above manner the said alleged facts stated by petitioner in her chief examination were not mentioned in her petition. For the 1st time she came up with all the above allegations in her evidence. Moreover if really her version of allegations about respondent family is true that is the respondent family trying to kill her, no women will be dare enough to stay in her in laws house even after their attempt to kill her. Further on this aspect it is also stated by her that her parents would come on the next day after receiving the information which is unbelievable. So, all the allegations against respondent and his family members appeared unbelievable and omnibus allegations.

The cherry on the cake declaration by the judge come in this para 23. Enjoy the misandrist rhetoric…

But he is not doing so, the same is also admitted by him in his cross examination that he is not paying any maintenance to pay the petitioner and his daughter. So, such attitude of remaining idle without maintaining his wife and child depending upon others also creates a mental agony to the Indian wife, particularly as the husband is bounded to maintain his family even though she is divorced unable to maintain herself. Moreover, it is also settled legislation that a able bodied husband is liable to maintain his wife and children even though he has no employment. Hence, the circumstances and the attitude of the respondent comes under purview of economic abuse as per domestic violence act. Hence, it is well established by the petitioner that she faced economic abuse in the hands of respondents. Accordingly she is entitled for maintenance.

Shaik Haseena Vs Md. Karimulla on 29 June, 2016

Hari Kishan & Anr Vs Sukhbir Singh & Ors on 25 August, 1988

Posted on June 30, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Hon’ble Supreme Court in this landmark judgment dealt with three questions, namely

(i) whether the respondents are not guilty of the offence under s. 307/149 IPC;
(ii) whether the High Court was justified in extending the benefit of s. 360 Cr.P.C. and releasing the accused on probation of good conduct; and
(iii) whether the compensation awarded to Joginder could be legally sustained, and if so, what should be the proper compensation ?

Let’s concentrate on the question #3

Hon’ble Apex Court has answered the question #3 above in likewise

This takes us to, the third questions which we have formulated earlier in this judgments. The High Court has directed each of the respondents to pay Rs. 2,500 as compensation to Joginder. The High Court has not referred to any provision of law in support of the order of compensation. But that can be traced to s. 357 Cr. P.C.
Section 357, leaving aside the unnecessary, provides :
“357. Order to pay compensation :
(1) When a court imposes a sentence of fine or a sentence (including a sentence of death) of which fine forms a part,the Court may. when passing judgment. order the whole or any part of the fine recovered to be applied-
(a) in defraying the expenses properly incurred in the prosecution;
(b) in the payment to any person of compensation for any loss or injury caused by the offence. when compensation is in the opinion of the Court, recoverable by such person in a civil Court;
XXXXX XXXXX XXXX
XXXXX XXXXX
XXXXX
(3) When a Court imposes a sentence, of which fine does not not form a part, the Court may, when passing judgment order the accused person to pay, by way of compensation such amount as may be specified in the order to the person who has suffered any loss or injury by reason of the act for which the accused person has been so sentenced.
(4) An order under this section may also be made by an Appellate Court or by the High Court or Court of Session when exercising its power of revision.
(5) At the time of awarding compensation in any subsequent civil suit relating to the same matter. the Court shall take into account any sum paid or recovered as compensation under this section.”

Sub-section (1) of Section 357 provides power to award compensation to victims of the offence out of the sentence of fine imposed on accused. In this case. we are not concerned with sub-section (1). We are concerned only with sub-section (3). It is an important provision but Courts have seldom invoked it. Perhaps due to ignorance of the object of it. It empowers the Court to award compensation to victims while passing judgment of conviction. In addition to conviction, the Court may order the accused to pay some amount by way of compensation to victim who has suffered by the action of accused. It may be noted that this power of Courts to award compensation is not ancillary to other sentences but it is in addition thereto. This power was intended to do something to re-assure the victim that he or she is not forgotten in the criminal justice system. It is a measure of responding appropriately to crime as well of reconciling the victim with the offender. It is, to some extent. a constructive approach to, crimes. It is indeed a step forward in our criminal justice system. We, therefore, recommend to all Courts to exercise this power liberally so as to meet the ends of justice in a better way.
The payment by way of compensation must, however, be reasonable What is reasonable, may depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The quantum of compensation may be determined by taking into account the nature of crime, the justness of claim by the victim and the ability of accused to pay. If there are more than one accused they may be asked to pay in equal terms unless their capacity to pay varies considerably. The payment may also vary depending upon the acts of each accused. Reasonable period for payment of compensation, if necessary by installments, may also be given. The Court may enforce the order by imposing sentence in default.

Final verdict in regards to this question #3

The compensation awarded by the High Court, in our opinion, appears to be inadequate having regard to the nature of injury suffered by Joginder. We have ascertained the means of accused and their ability to pay further sum to the victim. We are told that they are not unwilling to bear the additional burden. Mr. Lalit learned counsel said that his clients are willing to pay any amount determined by this Court. It is indeed a good gesture on the part of counsel and his clients.
With due regard to all the facts and circumstances of the case, we consider that Rs.50,000 compensation to Joginder would meet the ends of justice. We direct the respondents to pay the balance within two months in equal proportions.

Hari Kishan & Anr Vs Sukhbir Singh & Ors on 25 August, 1988

Tanguturi Sai Kumari Vs Tanguturi Vamsi Krishna on 2 November, 2016

Posted on June 29, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

In this case, the Knife alleged that her husband used to level false allegations of unchastity to her whenever her relatives were coming to the house of the respondent or ultimately after talking with one of her relatives over telephone, at any point of time after coming from the house of the respondent.

In Para 9, the Hon’ble Court held as

The evidence of the relatives of the petitioner who are said to have visited the house of the respondent when the petitioner was residing with the respondent, and also the evidence of the relative with whom the petitioner was talking over telephone prior to her alleged necking out from the house by the respondent are best evidence to establish the allegations of the petitioner against the respondent about the reason for imputing false allegations of unchastity to her. None of the said relatives of the petitioner are examined on the side of the petitioner to establish the very cause for the respondent to level allegation of unchastity to the petitioner leading this Court to draw an adverse inference against the petitioner under section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act. It is not in dispute that the respondent has filed HMOP 65/2014 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole for divorce on the ground of cruelty against the petitioner. The cross-examination of the petitioner indicates that she has filed present petition after four or five months after coming to the house of her parents. The respondent contends that as counter blast to the HMOP 65/2014 filed against the petitioner the present petition has been pressed into service by the petitioner.

Tanguturi Sai Kumari Vs Tanguturi Vamsi Krishna on 2 November, 2016

Renu Beniwal and others Vs Sarika Nehra Beniwal on 20 April, 2018

Posted on June 29, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court has dealt with 4 key questions in this judgment, namely,

(i) Whether the instant petition is maintainable, in view of the fact that the petitioners had initially approached this court seeking to challenge the orders passed by the Appellate Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No.M-24095 of 2015 and the same proceedings had been dismissed as withdrawn?
(ii) Whether the proceedings under the DV Act are maintainable against petitioners No.1 and 2, since it is admitted that they did not reside together with the respondent?
(iii) Whether the complainant-respondent would be entitled to reside in Flat No. 701, Tower 3 Uniworld Garden Sohna, Road Gurgaon, which is not belonging to her husband-petitioner No.3?
(iv) Whether the proceedings under the DV Act initiated prior in time to the decree of divorce would still be maintainable against petitioner No.3, even though the complainant-respondent has subsequently re-married?

The same are answered as follows

(i) As such, this question is answered against the respondent, holding that this petition is maintainable.
(ii) Therefore, from the above averments made in the complaint itself, it is abundantly clear that petitioners No.1 and 2 never resided or stayed together with respondent in a domestic relationship as defined in Section 2 (f) of the DV Act. Consequently, the complaint filed under the DV Act is clearly not maintainable against petitioners No.1 and 2 herein. As such, this question is answered in favour of petitioners No.1 and 2. Consequently, the complaint filed under the DV Act along with all the subsequent proceedings arising out of the same, including the impugned orders, are hereby quashed qua petitioners No.1 and 2.
(iii) From Para 19, In view of the foregoing discussion and ratio of law held by the Supreme Court in S.R. Batra’s case (supra) the third question formed by this court is answered against the respondent-wife. The house in question, being exclusively belonging to petitioner No.2 (father-in-law), it cannot be called a “shared household” within the ambit of Section 2(s) of the DV Act. Therefore, the complainant-respondent has no right to reside in the said flat and the injunction order passed by the court restraining petitioner No.2 from dispossessing her is clearly unsustainable. Consequently, the impugned order dated 1.12.2014 passed by the trial court as well as order dated 02.06.2015 passed by the lower Appellate Court restraining the petitioners herein from dispossessing the complainant-respondent from the flat in question is set aside.
(iv) The complaint filed by the respondent cannot be quashed at this stage regarding the allegations against petitioner No 3. Therefore, this question is answered against petitioner No.3.

Renu Beniwal and others Vs Sarika Nehra Beniwal on 20 April, 2018

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Author: ShadesOfKnife

Shaik Noorjahan Vs Shaik Dilshad Begam on 28 April, 2015

Shumita Didi Sandhu Vs Sanjay Singh Sandhu & Others on 26 October, 2010

Ravuri Venkata Lakshmi Mahathi Vs Ravuri Venkata Durga Butchi Rajeswararao on 22 April, 2016

Madhala Sujatha Vs Madhala Srinivasulu on 8 June, 2015

Chavala Kalpana Vs Chavala Audilakshmi on 5 May, 2015

Shaik Shakheela Vs Shaik Mahamad Rafi on 22 September, 2017

Shaik Haseena Vs Md. Karimulla on 29 June, 2016

Hari Kishan & Anr Vs Sukhbir Singh & Ors on 25 August, 1988

Tanguturi Sai Kumari Vs Tanguturi Vamsi Krishna on 2 November, 2016

Renu Beniwal and others Vs Sarika Nehra Beniwal on 20 April, 2018