Challa Mahalakshmi Vs Challa Babu Rao on 16 April, 2018

Posted on June 29, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

In this case, there was mischief played by husband together with his mother to usurp the portion of home which is in the name in wife.

From Para 9,

Therefore, in view of foregoing discussion this Court holds that the petitioner is entitled to reside her own house as she is the absolute rightful owner of the house sanctioned to her by the government under DK Patta for an extent of Ac.0-03 cents in the Sy.No.214 of Maddipadu village.

From Para 10,

In exercise of the powers conferred under section 37 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the Central Government makes rules under Rules 6 :- Application to the Magistrate:- (1) Every application of the aggrieved person under section 12 shall be in Form-II or as nearly as possible thereto. Hence, from the perusal of the aforesaid provision of law, it is clear that it is not imperative for the court to file Form-II.
Further see section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005:- An applicant/complainant can be filed before the Court either by an aggrieved person or by a Protection Officer or any other person on behalf of the aggrieved person. In this way section 12(1) does not contemplated that such application should invariably be accompanied by a report from a protection officer. On perusal of proviso appended to the provision, it appears that before passing any order on the application, it is obligatory on the Court to take into consideration any report received by it from the protection officer or the service provider. Neither it is obligatory to the Court to call such report nor it is necessary that before issuance of the notice to the respondents it was obligatory for the court to consider the report. However, if any report from the protection officer is available before the Court that shall taken into consideration, but the law does not impose pre-condition for the Court to call for a report from the protection officer.

Domestic Violence, is, perse, not a criminal offence, but is defined extensively and comprehensively to include various conditions.

Challa Mahalakshmi Vs Challa Babu Rao on 16 April, 2018

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

Tagaram Raja Kumari Vs Cherukuri Aruna Kumar on 20 January, 2015

Posted on June 29, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Hon’ble court in this judgment ordered monthly maintenance, protection order, residence order, compensation and also litigation costs.

From Para 10,

The respondents dispute the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent no.1 and the status of the petitioner as the legally wedded wife of the respondent no.1. No doubt the petitioner did not produce any marriage certificate issued by the authorities of Poleramma temple, Nalgonda, and admittedly PW2 did not attend their marriage, however, the petition under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, is maintainable even if a woman has failed to prove that she is the legally wedded wife of the man, provided she shows a domestic relationship existed between them, and that she had lived together along with the man in the shared house hold. Such evidence is given by PW1 before this Court, and that there is no evidence in rebuttal. The evidence of PW1 regarding domestic relationship with respondent no.1 in the shared household and her subjection to domestic violence by the respondents is also corroborated with the evidence of PW2, her paternal grandfather, and the said testimonies of PW1 and PW2 is also not destroyed in material particulars by the respondents during the course of their cross-examination except giving suggestions that were denied by them. When the respondents denies the relationship itself, it can be used as one of the circumstances against them for the proof of domestic violence. The evidence of PW1 and PW2 prove that the petitioner was neglected by the respondents and subjected to domestic violence for dowry. This point is answered accordingly in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.

Tagaram Raja Kumari Vs Cherukuri Aruna Kumar on 20 January, 2015

Kandula Lakshmi Vs Kandula Raghava Rao on 22 December, 2015

Posted on June 29, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

In this case, the Husband has not filed a Counter in response to DV Case on him by his Knife but did a namesake cross-examination. Hon’ble Court has granted Maintenance, Residential and Compensation reliefs as there was no challenge made to the allegations of Knife.

Kandula Lakshmi Vs Kandula Raghava Rao on 22 December, 2015

Peddi Anusha Vs Peddi Vamsi Krishna on 4 August, 2016

Posted on June 28, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

In this case, Hon’ble Court has set the Husband his family as ex parte as the husband just filed a Counter in response to a DV Case on him by his Knife but later did not join the proceedings ever. Granted Maintenance and Compensation as there was no challenge made to the allegations of Knife.

Peddi Anusha Vs Peddi Vamsi Krishna on 4 August, 2016

Ravuri Sujatha Vs Hanumantha Rao on 9 September, 2016

Posted on June 28, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

In continuation of the case posted here, in this order, Hon’ble court ordered the respondent-husband to pay interim monthly maintenance @ Rs.4,000/- to the petitioner from the date of this order till the disposal of DVC, whereas the request from Knife was to grant Rs.25,000/- per month.

Ravuri Sujatha Vs Hanumantha Rao on 9 September, 2016

Ravuri Sujatha Vs Hanumantha Rao on 29 August, 2016

Posted on June 28, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

In this case Knife claims to be wife of respondent and he denies same. In this context, this application was moved to receive some documents by the court. and Hon’ble court has held that the documents are received on the record of the case with subject to their proof, relevancy and admissibility.

Ravuri Sujatha Vs Hanumantha Rao on 29 August, 2016

Continue here.

Barakam Rama Devi Vs Barakam Venu Babu on 6 February, 2017

Posted on June 28, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Domestic Violence is proved in this case and reliefs granted by Hon’ble Court. Illegal affair is alleged by Husband and Wife Could not produce any documentary evidence to prove his salary or agricultural land.

Barakam Rama Devi Vs Barakam Venu Babu on 6 February, 2017

Guduri Niroosha Vs Guduri Dakshina Murthy on 16 October 2017

Posted on June 28, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

In this case, Domestic Violence on Knife by husband is proved hence all reliefs requested are granted by Hon’ble Court.

Guduri Niroosha Vs Guduri Dakshina Murthy on 16 October 2017

Challa Bhanumathi Vs Challa Jagadeesh Kumar Babu on 20 Devember, 2017

Posted on June 26, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

In this interesting case of Domestic Violence by a son on his mother, the Hon’ble court has allowed maintenance to the mother.

Challa Bhanumathi Vs Challa Jagadeesh Kumar Babu on 20 Devember, 2017

Yedluri Aparna Vs Gunde Prasanna Babu on 27 September, 2016

Posted on June 26, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

In this judgment, the false DV Case is dismissed after trial.

Highlights

The petitioner suppressed the filing of Criminal case against the Respondents.
Evidence of PW.1 that immediately after the marriage they put up family at Chirala and led happy marital life for one month is false.
Evidence of PW.1 that the disputes arose between herself and the 1st Respondent in the 3rd month after the marriage is not believable.
PW.2 has improvised the evidence of PW.1 and stated that the elders of the Respondent informed to the father of the petitioner to take back the petitioner as 1st Respondent necked out of the house and she waited the out side of the house, which is not stated by PW.1 in her evidence or in her petition.
PW.2 did not state what PW.1 has stated in her evidence. On the other hand, PW.2 stated what PW.1 has not stated in her evidence, which is a serious allegation made against the 1st Respondent.
In his cross-examination PW.2 stated that he does not know the family affairs of the Respondent after the marriage. This itself shows that PW.2 is speaking false hood.
PW.2 further stated in his cross-examination that he does not know at the time of marriage whether the petitioner has been continuing her studies or not and he does not know further studies of the petitioner after the marriage
The evidence of PW.3 that he visited the house of the 1st Respondent in the month of September, 2015 along with Lama Suresh and found PW.1 out side the house, as she was necked out during midnight by the 1st Respondent is not at all believable.
If really, the petitioner was necked out during midnight, the petitioner is not an illiterate woman, she is educated and she might have went to the Police Station and ought to have lodged a report at least with the help of PW.3. But PW.1 did not do so.
If really any domestic violence has occurred as stated by the petitioner and if really the 1st Respondent demanded additional dowry of Rs.3,00,000/- and used to beat her in a drunken state, then how can the 1st Respondent visit his in-laws house at B. Nidamanuru Village.
This lends support to the contention of the 1st Respondent that the 1st Respondent might have married the petitioner withoutreceiving any dowry, since the 1st Respondent is an employee. Added to that PW.1 in her cross-examination stated that her father is an agriculturist and he was not having any agricultural land. When the father of the petitioner herself is not owning any land and he is an agriculturist then how can he give a dowry of Rs.5,00,000/- besides Rs.1,50,000/- towards marriage expenses and also 6 sovereigns of gold to the 1st Respondent at the time of marriage.

Final nail in the coffin of the knife

From Para 22,

However, PW.1 categorically stated in her evidence that she is ready and willing to join the 1st Respondent, if he changes his attitude. If really PW.1 was subjected to domestic violence, certainly PW.1 will not express her willingness to join with to Respondent No.1. PW.1 did not state that she will join 1st Respondent, if he withdraw his demand of additional dowry of Rs.3,00,000/-. This itself shows that there is no demand of additional dowry by 1st Respondent.

Yedluri Aparna Vs Gunde Prasanna Babu on 27 September, 2016

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Author: ShadesOfKnife

Challa Mahalakshmi Vs Challa Babu Rao on 16 April, 2018

Tagaram Raja Kumari Vs Cherukuri Aruna Kumar on 20 January, 2015

Kandula Lakshmi Vs Kandula Raghava Rao on 22 December, 2015

Peddi Anusha Vs Peddi Vamsi Krishna on 4 August, 2016

Ravuri Sujatha Vs Hanumantha Rao on 9 September, 2016

Ravuri Sujatha Vs Hanumantha Rao on 29 August, 2016

Barakam Rama Devi Vs Barakam Venu Babu on 6 February, 2017

Guduri Niroosha Vs Guduri Dakshina Murthy on 16 October 2017

Challa Bhanumathi Vs Challa Jagadeesh Kumar Babu on 20 Devember, 2017

Yedluri Aparna Vs Gunde Prasanna Babu on 27 September, 2016