Maya and Ors Vs State of U.P. and Ors on 19 Mar 2021

Posted on September 12, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A Single judge of Allahabad High Court held as follows,

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petition under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act was filed by the petitioners way back on
16.07.2016 and despite the opposite party nos.2 to 8 have been served, the petition is still pending before the court below and the same has not been
decided as provided under Section 12(5) of the Domestic Violence Act. While drawing the attention of this Court towards the order-sheet of the case, it has been submitted that now the case is pending for cross examination of the prosecution witness no.3.
Learned A.G.A. would have no objection to the prayer of the petitioners as it is otherwise the mandate of law to dispose of the cases pertaining to the Domestic Violence Act at the earliest.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the record and having regard the nature of order proposed to be passed, issuance of notice to the opposite party nos.2 to 8 is dispensed with.
Having regard to the provisions under Section 12(5) of the Domestic Violence Act, the petition is disposed of with the direction to the learned Judicial Magistrate-I, Lucknow to make all endeavors to decide the above-mentioned complaint case within two months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order, without granting soft adjournments to either of the parties, in accordance with law.

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/51997103/

Connects to a PIL here.

Post Views: 707

Suyalaly and Anr Vs Alphin Jeyasingh and Ors on 29 Nov 2021

Posted on September 12, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A Single judge of Madras High Court held as follows,

From Paras 4 and 5,

4. The complaint has been filed under the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners draws my attention to Section 12(5) of the Act which states that the Magistrate shall endeavour to dispose of every application made under sub-section (1) within a period of sixty days from the date of its first hearing.
5. In this case, the complaint was filed way back in the year 2019. Keeping the petition pending for more than two years is not an acceptable state of affairs. The learned trial Magistrate is directed to dispose of D.V.C.No.11 of 2019 on merits and in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Suyalaly and Anr Vs Alphin Jeyasingh and Ors on 29 Nov 2021

Other Sources:

Connects to a PIL here.

Post Views: 670

Tillottama Kumari Vs State of Bihar and Ors on 16 May 2019

Posted on September 12, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A Single judge of Patna High Court held as follows,

In my previous order dated 10.04.2019 while calling for a report from the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Katihar as to why any effective order has not been passed till date despite hearing the case on behalf of the parties on several dates, I had already indicated that the Protection of Women fromDomestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short ‘the Act’) has been enacted by the Parliament to provide more effective protection of the rights of women guaranteed under the Constitution.
Section 12(5) of the Act provides that the Magistrate shall endeavour to dispose of every application made under subsection (1) within a period of sixty days from the date of its firsthearing. Under the circumstances, keeping the matter pending for over two years is wholly unjustified.
In that view of the matter, I direct the learned Sub-Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Katihar to dispose of the complaint in accordance with law as early as possible preferably within six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order.

Tillottama Kumari Vs State of Bihar and Ors on 16 May 2019

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/82362334/

Connects to a PIL here.

Post Views: 701

Mrugesh Wasnik Vs Shweta Mrugesh on 22 Jun 2022

Posted on September 12, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A Single judge of Bombay High Court held as follows,

From Para 5, (some one tried hard to help the knife just so that she can reap the benefit of interim reliefs!)

5. Section 12(5) of the D.V. Act casts the obligation on the Magistrate to make every endevour to dispose of the application within a period of 60 days from the date of first hearing. The record itself speaks that in disregard to the statutory mandate, the Magistrate has adjourned the Matter for no reason. It is informed that the Magistrate has already passed the order of interim maintenance which is prevailing till date. It is submitted that the non-applicant/wife without prosecuting her main petition, is interested in deriving benefits of interim order.

From Para 6, why not?

6. Though it is prayed that the D.V. proceeding be dismissed for want of prosecution, however, the same course is not advisable. As on date, the non-applicant/ wife’s amendment application is on record which is to be responded. At this stage, only requirement is to issue certain directions to the Magistrate to expedite the proceeding. Certainly such direction would be in the interest of non-applicant/wife. The applicant/husband undertakes to file his reply to amendment application on the next date i.e. on 12.07.2022 itself.

From Para 7,

7. In view of above, learned Magistrate is directed to hear and decide the amendment application within one week from filing of reply and the non-applicant/wife shall file evidence-affidavit within one week thereafter. The Magistrate shall not grant adjournment to either of the parties barring exceptional situation. In any case, the Magistrate shall dispose of the D. V. Proceeding within three months from the date of filing of wife’s evidence-affidavit.

Mrugesh Wasnik Vs Shweta Mrugesh on 22 Jun 2022

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/105650848/

Connects to a PIL here.

Post Views: 808

Vani Santhosh Babu Vs Vijaya Laxmi Vani on 3 Mar 2022

Posted on September 12, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A Single judge of Telangana High Court held as follows (while dismissing the petition),

From Para 6,

6. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order. However, considering the fact that the DVC is of the year, 2018, learned IV Additional Junior Civil Judge-Cum-XII Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, Cyberabad is directed to dispose of DVC.No.4 of 2018 in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible preferably within 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

Vani Santhosh Babu Vs Vijaya Laxmi Vani on 3 Mar 2022

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/102447017/

Connects to a PIL here.

Post Views: 664

Sushila Devi Vs Vikas Kumar Singhal And Ors on 9 Feb 2018

Posted on September 12, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A Single judge of Rajasthan High Court held as follows,

On perusal of the certified copy of the order-sheets, it appears that the application under Section 12 of the Act was filed way-back on 08.09.2016. Counsel appeared on behalf of respondents No.1 & 4 on 05.12.2016 and the matter is still pending before the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1, Neem Ka Thana, Sikar whereas as per provisions of Section 12(5) of the Act mandates that the Magistrate shall endeavour to dispose of every application made under sub-section 12(1) within a period of sixty days from the date of its first hearing. In the present case, five months have been passed, but no effective proceedings have taken place in the present matter. It appears to be an abuse of process of law, looking to the way in which proceedings are taking place in the court concerned.
In view of above, direction is issued to the Court of Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate No.1, Neem Ka Thana, Sikar to make every endeavour to conclude the proceedings within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

Sushila Devi Vs Vikas Kumar Singhal And Ors on 9 Feb 2018

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/92995617/

Connects to a PIL here.

Post Views: 625

Mewa Singh and others Vs Sukhjeet Kaur on 29 April 2013

Posted on September 12, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A Single judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court held as follows,

The petitioners are permitted to be represented through a counsel and are not required to be personally present on each and every date of hearing unless until a special order is passed, warranting the appearance of the petitioners ( respondents in the complaint before the Magistrate). Relegating the petitioners to avail the alternative remedy, this petition is held to be not maintainable.
Disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to raise all the pleas before the court of competent jurisdiction. It is expected that the said court will expeditiously dispose of the matter taking into consideration the provisions of Section 12(5) of the Act.

Mewa Singh and others Vs Sukhjeet Kaur on 29 Apr 2013

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/197445836/

Connects to a PIL here.

Post Views: 623

Kuppusamy Vs Radhika on 21 Jul 2017

Posted on September 12, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A Single judge of Madras High Court held as follows,

From Para 5,

5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent filed a petition for Maintenance in M.C.No.36 of 2015 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Karur and that ex-parte order was passed only in the said case. Subsequently, a petition was filed to set aside the ex-parte order and the proceedings were restored. In such circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the provisions under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and particularly, with reference to Section 12 of the Act. As per Section 12(5) of the Act, the learned Magistrate shall make an endeavour to dispose the enquiry within a period of sixty days from the date of its first hearing. It is surprising to note that the respondent is opposing early disposal.

From Para 7,

7. Hence, the Criminal Original petition is allowed and the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Karur District, is directed to dispose of the proceedings in D.V.No.1 of 2016 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.

Kuppusamy Vs Radhika on 21 Jul 2017

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/26605471/

Connects to a PIL here.

Post Views: 684

Ayishabi Vs Shahul Hameed on 16 July, 2014

Posted on September 12, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A Single judge of Kerala High Court held as follows,

From Para 5,

5. It is an admitted fact that, the petitioner filed M.C.155/2013 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Malappuram, under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (hereinafter called the Act), claiming reliefs under Section 18, 19 and 20 of that Act against respondents 1 to 3. It is also mentioned in the petition that, the petitioner also filed Crl.M.P.10228/2013 for interim relief, but that was also adjourned along with main case is the grievance of the petitioner. It is seen from the report that, respondents 1 to 3 appeared and they filed counter also and the matter was referred for mediation and according to the magistrate the mediation report in the case is awaited. But the counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the mediation failed and it is ripe for trial now. It is true that under Section 12(5) of the Act, it is stated that, the magistrate shall take all earnest endeavour to dispose of the case within sixty days of first hearing of the case. But unfortunately, such a mandate could not be fulfilled by the court on account of large pendency of cases before each court. But that cannot be a ground for adjourning the case indefinitely, when the statute mandates for early summary disposal of certain types of cases, which requires urgent attention of the court. Further, even if the court feels that, disposal of the main case will take some time on account of the large pendency of cases before that court, it should have made some attempt to dispose of the interim application filed in that case under Section 23 of the Act, as it is intended to provide interim protection for the aggrieved persons, against any alleged domestic violence in the shared house hold. So under the circumstances, this court feels that, the petition can be disposed of as follows:
The learned magistrate is directed to dispose of M.C.155/2013 pending before that court, as expeditiously as possible at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of this order.

Ayishabi Vs Shahul Hameed on 16 July, 2014

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/27041307/

Connects to a PIL here.

Post Views: 647

Waseem Vs State of UP and Anr on 30 Aug 2022

Posted on September 7, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge at Allahabad High Court, held as follows:

From Para 34,

In paragraph No. 4 of the affidavit, it is mentioned that a meeting was convened on 26.8.2022 under the Chairmanship of Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, which was attended by Mr. B.D. Paulson, Secretary, Home Department, Government of U.P. Lucknow, Mr. Tarun Gauba, Secretary Home Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh, Lucknow, Mr. M.K. Bashal, Additional Director General of Police (Crime), U.P. Lucknow, Mr. Prem Prakash, Additional Director General of Police, Prayagraj Zone, Prayagraj (through video conferencing), Mr. Amit Pathak, Deputy Inspector General of Police (Public Grievance) DGP Headquarters, U.P. Lucknow, Mr. Rakesh Kumar Malpani, Special Secretary, Home Department, Dr. A.K. Singh, Special Secretary, Home Department, Mr. Shiv Kumar Pal, Government Advocate, High Court, Allahabad (through video conferencing), Mr. M.C. Chaturvedi, Additional Advocate General, High Court, Allahabad (through video conferencing) and Mr. Ashish Singh, Senior Prosecuting Officer and after due deliberation, following decisions were taken:
(i) Postmortem and injury reports must be typed out and made easily legible and practice of handwritten reports be discontinued.
(ii) During the postmortem examination, there should be DNA and fingerprint sampling and necessary software must be developed for this purpose.
(iii) In cases of gunshot injuries, instead of full body xray, the x-ray should be of the area where the wound is located. However, in such cases where the wound of entry or exit is not apparent, the need of taking x-ray be made mandatory.
(iv) During postmortem examination, the injuries on the dead body should be photographed in colour to highlight the same.
(v) An index be prepared to be appended with each case diary, which is submitted before the Prosecutor/Hon’ble Judges. It should be explored if necessary facility can be provided through CCTNS software.
(vi) A synopsis be prepared of the contents of the report containing the opinion of the investigating officer as encapsulated in the report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C. An index should also be prepared for convenient perusal and reference. This synopsis be a part of the report under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C.
(vii) The importance of the role of the supervisory officer be emphasized and that the said officer should not function only as a post office. Every investigation must be scrutinized in a microscopic manner and any lacuna or lapse must be pointed out to the investigating officer. Provisions should also be made for training the investigating officer on a regular basis.
(viii) Senior Supervisory Officers must submit the report submitted by the police under Section 173(2) Cr.P.C expeditiously and not hold it back in their custody needlessly. In this context, a letter dated 05.05.2016 had already been issued by the Director General of Police, U.P. Lucknow.
(ix) Before ordering further investigation under Section 173(8), it is desirable to seek permission/give information to the concerned learned court, but the necessity of this step be examined in the light of the relevant and applicable statutory provisions and the judgements and observations passed by Hon’ble Apex Court and Hon’ble High Court. In all cases where the statements of witnesses are recorded using audio/video mode, the relevant material be made part of the case diary by means of compact disc/pen drive.
(x) The font size used for preparing the case diary be increased to a size, which would facilitate easy and legible perusal of the same. For this purpose, the cooperation of NIC be sought to implement the increase in font-size in the records, uploaded on the CCTNS.
(xi) The strict adherence be ensured to the statutory provisions encapsulated in Section 65B IPC and that investigating officer be trained to adopt a sensitive approach in these matters.
(xii) It was emphasized that proper directions be imparted to supervisory officers to ensure that they perform their duty efficiently and diligently. It was informed by the Additional Director General of Police (crime) that in all districts (pan state) training was being imparted in orderly room and by crime meetings. The Additional Chief Secretary (Home), Government of U.P., Lucknow issued directions that action be initiated against those investigating officer who displayed negligence in discharging their duties and thereby impair fair and proper investigation.
(xiii) In every district, the Joint Director (Prosecution) should head a legal cell, which should be established with the aim to educate all investigating officers with the latest amendments in criminal law and the judgements passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court and Hon’ble High Court.
(xiv) Lastly, it was decided that the necessary government order/circular/road-map, which was to be issued covered a vast range and the support and cooperation of technical and other departments was required.

Waseem Vs State of UP and Anr on 30 Aug 2022

Post Views: 127

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Maya and Ors Vs State of U.P. and Ors on 19 Mar 2021

Suyalaly and Anr Vs Alphin Jeyasingh and Ors on 29 Nov 2021

Tillottama Kumari Vs State of Bihar and Ors on 16 May 2019

Mrugesh Wasnik Vs Shweta Mrugesh on 22 Jun 2022

Vani Santhosh Babu Vs Vijaya Laxmi Vani on 3 Mar 2022

Sushila Devi Vs Vikas Kumar Singhal And Ors on 9 Feb 2018

Mewa Singh and others Vs Sukhjeet Kaur on 29 April 2013

Kuppusamy Vs Radhika on 21 Jul 2017

Ayishabi Vs Shahul Hameed on 16 July, 2014

Waseem Vs State of UP and Anr on 30 Aug 2022