No comment. Just read
Velpula Kalyani Vs Velpula Venkata Rao on 4 December, 2017
It seems, the burden of proof is pushed onto the husband who has to prove that he didn’t commit DV. This is the essence of this judgment.
Note: The husband was acquitted in the IPC 498A case filed by Knife. Here is the judgment.
Ganipineni Sudharani Vs Ganipineni KrishnaMohan on 2 May, 2017
Here is another BS judgment from same justice. Blatant misinterpretation of an earlier Supreme Court order to cause advantage to the party of Knife. Either by ignorance or for kickbacks received. God Knows
Shame on him.
Kasukurthi Sowjanya Vs Kasukurthi Venkata Rao on 18 February, 2016
Knife lied in cross-examination in court quite in contradiction with content in her petition and judge tossed it into dustbin.
Ashmin Kashmiri Vs Pushkar Kashmiri on 4 July, 2018
In this judgment Justice Dharam Chand Choudhary has affirmed that under section 23 of DV Act, the Magistrate should be satisfied that the DV application prima facie discloses that the respondent is committing, or has committed and act of domestic violence, he may grant an ex parte order on the basis of the affidavit.
As such the case is returned back to trial court to proceed in according to law.
Citations: [2
Other Source links:
Avishek Goenka Vs Union Of India & Anr on 27 April, 2012
This is the Hon’ble Apex Court order affirming the guidelines of TRAI/DoT in regards to providing of subscriber database, Base Transceiver Station (BTS) location, Call Detail Record (CDR) and Customer Acquisition Form (CAF) to Department of Telecommunication or Designated Security Agencies.
Here is the operative portion from point 11 (ii) which is of interest for us.
In case, CAF of any subscriber is asked by the TERM Cells/ designated Security Agencies, the original/scan copy of CAF & documents shall be furnished within 1 hour. Subscriber data will be provided in 1 hr. BTS Location shall also be provided within 1 hour but not later than 6 Hours. CDRs upto 6 months old shall be provided within 12 hours and CDR more than 6 months old shall be provided within 24 hours.
Gunakala Durga Rani Vs Gunakala Sudhakar on 6 January 2015
The Knife got here DV petition dismissed. LOL
Key points
- Unexplained delay
- Dowry not proved
- No return of articles given voluntarily
Tirumalasetty Jyothirmayi Vs Peddisetty Venkata Siva Sai Ram on 20 April, 2017
Another BS judgment here. Don’t want to write anything about it. Help yourself.
Pathan Bazidhunnisa Vs Shaik Shafiul Rahman on 21 July, 2016
Another sh_t of judgment here. Read this entire Para 9 for the entertainment.
As seen the allegations of the petitioner, she was being demanded by the Respondents for want of additional dowry. But there is no proof for that. This Court feels that demanding additional dowry is not an offence. As far as the Domestic Violence Act is concerned, to deal the said offence, there is a separate legislation is enacted. But the quantum of mental agony which an innocent woman faced when she is not in a position to meet the financial requirements of the husband shall have to be understand in the prospective of legislation. The petitioner stated in her evidence that the Respondents harassed her for want of additional dowry. For asking the proof of Domestic Harassment against a woman, is not feasible in all the circumstances. It is depend upon the circumstances of a party. When the husband demands additional dowry, the demand must be took place inside the wall and no third party will have an opportunity to witness the said demand. Logically no husband demands the dowry or other articles in front of others. Obviously, any demand for want of dowry will be took place within four corners of the wall. For proving that fact, evidence may not require. The victim evidence itself is sufficient to prove her case. It is not a standard proof of believing of a particular fact. It is depend upon the circumstances. When the allegation of harassment was depicted by the petitioner herself, the demeanor of the witness manner which she speaks will play a vital role in deciding the case. Because, no third party will have an opportunity to see the harassment alleged to be happened against the petitioner. Therefore, this court feels that Pw1 evidence is alone sufficient to prove her version. If the respondents really did not commit any offence, they should come to the court and defend the case. But the defendants did not choose to put forth their defence in any manner. They fail to attend before this court in all hearing dates. In view of the no challenging the testimony of witness, this court holds the issue in favor of petitioner.
Ummadi Koteswari Vs Ummadi Koteswara rao on 31 August, 2016
After making huge claims for property from mother-in-law, the Knife did not come forward to discredit the version of RW1 as well she also did not come forward to prove her version as stated in her report. Hence, from the above observation it is apparent that petitioner has no interest to proceed with the case. Accordingly Petition is dismissed.
