web analytics

Menu

Skip to content
Shades of Knife
  • Home
  • True Colors of a Vile Wife
  • Need Inspiration?
  • Blog Updates
  • SOK Gallery
  • Vile News Reporter
  • About Me
  • Contact Me

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Category: High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification

Chidurala Shyamsubder Vs State of Telangana on 27 Aug 2018

Posted on May 28 by ShadesOfKnife

I came across the following snippet of post on 23-May-2026.

Pulled out the above Order by the High Court of Telangana, with little difficulty.

Jivani Sahil Firoz Ali Vs State of Telangana and Anr on 04 May 2026
.

I went to the decision relied on by this case/judge in Para-3 and obtained this wonderful common Order with respect of FSS Act 2006 by the erstwhile Combined High Court of Andhra Pradesh. When I read through it, I visualized the stark similarities between FSS Act 2006 and Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 (amended in 1984 and 1986), which I intend to take full advantage in a future PIL, by making a comparison of appointment, duties, powers of a Food Safety Officer vis-a-vis that of the Dowry Prohibition Officer. There is possibility of getting State police off the offences under DP Act, just like APHC held in this Order (gainfully relying on various other High Court judgments)

 

Chidurala Shyamsubder Vs State of Telangana on 27 Aug 2018

The efforts to be invested in this direction connect to this page here.

 

Posted in High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to Chidurala Shyamsubder Vs State of Telangana | Leave a comment

Bagadi Santhosh Kumar Vs Union of India and Ors on 12 Mar 2025

Posted on February 21 by ShadesOfKnife

The Andhra Pradesh High Court examined the legality of a Look-Out Circular (LOC) issued against the petitioner in a matrimonial-related criminal case.

The Court held that authorities cannot issue an LOC routinely. The Court emphasised that an LOC affects personal liberty and must satisfy the conditions laid down in the Ministry of Home Affairs guidelines. Since the petitioner had cooperated with the investigation and the case did not fall within exceptional categories, the Court directed withdrawal of the LOC.

Before reproducing the relevant extracts, the Court examined the constitutional protection of personal liberty and the statutory guidelines governing Look-Out Circulars.

Relevant Extracts from the Judgment:

“14. It is basic that merely because a person is involved in a criminal case, he is not denude of his Fundamental Rights, it is the fundamental of a person to move anywhere he likes including foreign countries. One’s such personal freedom and liberty cannot be abridged. [See; Article 21 Constitution of India].”

“14. But, in any case, it must be fair and reasonable. It should not be indiscriminate without any reason or basis.”

“17. Sub-para J of Office Memorandum dated 22.02.2021 mandates that a Look-Out Circular shall remain in force until and unless a deletion request is received by the Bureau of Immigration from the Originator and that no Look-Out Circular shall be deleted automatically.”

“18. Sub-para L of the circular dt. 22.02.2021 indicates that Look-Out Circulars could be issued in exceptional cases where the departure of the person concerned will be detrimental to the sovereignty, security and integrity of India…”

“20. Issuance of LOC, in the peculiar facts of this case, is unwarranted.”

“21. Given the facts and circumstances of the case, the 5th respondent shall withdraw the Look-Out Circular issued against the petitioner in connection with Crime No.319 of 2024… forthwith.”

Decision

The Andhra Pradesh High Court allowed the writ petition. The Court directed the authorities to withdraw the Look-Out Circular forthwith. The Court permitted the petitioner to approach the Magistrate for travel permission in the pending criminal case.


Bagadi Santosh Kumar Vs Union of India and Ors on 12 Mar 2025

Citation :

Other Sources :


Index of Look Out Circular notices is here. 


Key Contributor :

Mrs. Suprajaa Rajan B.Com., LL.B., LL.M.

+91-9606345150


Posted in High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty Article 226 - Lookout Circular (LOC) Quashed Bagadi santhosh kumar Vs Union of India and Ors Criminal law Criminal Procedure LOC in Matrimonial Dispute Look Out Circular Look Out Circular Notices Quashing of LOC Right to Travel | Leave a comment

Pothugutla Sushmitha Vs State of AP and Anr on 05 Sep 2022

Posted on February 20 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of AP High Court held as follows,

From Paras 10 and 11,

10. The observations made in both the decisions are similar and they go to show that if anyone is declared as an absconder/proclaimed offender in terms of Section 82 of the Code, he is not entitled to the relief of anticipatory bail.
11. In the instant case, Non-Bailable-Warrant was issued against the petitioner/A-4 as she was shown absconding in the charge sheet and it is not the case that proclamation proceedings were initiated and thus, the petitioner cannot at all be termed as a ‘proclaimed offender’ so as to disentitle her from getting the relief of anticipatory bail. Thus, as per the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and since proclamation proceedings under section 82 Cr.P.C. are not initiated, the present petition is maintainable.

Pothugutla Sushmitha Vs State of AP and Anr on 05 Sep 2022
Posted in High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision CrPC 438 - Anticipatory Bail Granted CrPC 82 - Proclamation For Person Absconding Pothugutla Sushmitha Vs State of AP and Anr Reportable Judgement or Order | Leave a comment

Lagubeeru Venkata Arun Kiran Vs Union of India and Ors on 04 Feb 2026

Posted on February 9 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of AP High Court held that LOCs could be issued in exceptional cases where the departure of the person concerned will be detrimental to the sovereignty, security and integrity of India or is detrimental to the bilateral relations with any country or to the strategic and/or economic interests of India or that person may potentially indulge in an act of terrorism or offence against the State. Not in Section 498A IPC cases routinely.

From Paras 9 and 10,

9. Admittedly, by virtue of opening of the Look Out Circular, personal liberty of the person is curtailed. The LOCs are only the circular instructions that have been issued by the respondent/police only with a view to detain a person or to see that he will cooperate with the trial. Of late, in each and every case that has been registered under Section 498-A IPC, it has become common for the respondent/police, without looking into the aspects whether the petitioner is cooperating with the trial or he is evading arrest, to open the LOCs in mechanical manner. It is essential that the police have to open LOCs against the persons who are the accused for grave offences or the persons who are involved in financial irregularities or the offences which are against the Society. In such cases, the respondent/police can resort in opening the LOCs against the accused, not permitting them to leave the country. If the accusation against the accused persons is such that it is detrimental to the Nation, then LOC can be issued. In the case on hand, the offence alleged is under Section 498-A IPC and the offence is not so grave and if the petitioner is not permitted to travel abroad as a part of his employment, by virtue of opening LOC, the petitioner would suffer irreparable loss. These aspects have to be seen on the touchstone of the Article 21 of the Constitution of India. By virtue of opening LOC the personal liberty of the person would be affected. On mere registration of a case for the offence under Section 498-A IPC, opening of the LOC against the accused, will affect his career. In most of the cases under matrimonial offences, it may end in compromise or it will take much time for the case to come up for hearing. As such, it is not necessary for the respondent/police to open LOC against the petitioner herein.
10. Sub-para (L) of the Guidelines on the Look-out Circular issued by the Ministry of Home Affairs, vide OM No.25016/10/2017-Imm (pt), dated 22.02.2021, indicates that Look-Out Circulars could be issued in exceptional cases where the departure of the person concerned will be detrimental to the sovereignty, security and integrity of India or is detrimental to the bilateral relations with any country or to the strategic and/or economic interests of India or that person may potentially indulge in an act of terrorism or offence against the State, if such person is allowed to leave or where travel ought not be permitted in the larger public interest at any given point of time.

Lagubeeru Venkata Arun Kiran Vs Union of India and Ors on 04 Feb 2026

Citations:

Other Sources:


Index of LOC Judgments is here.

Posted in High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision Article 226 - Lookout Circular (LOC) Quashed Lagubeeru Venkata Arun Kiran Vs Union of India and Ors Look Out Circular Notices | Leave a comment

K Jagga Rao Vs State of AP and Anr on 14 Aug 2023

Posted on January 27 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of AP High Court, relying on A Subash Babu judgment from Supreme Court here (referred to a partially perverse decision of AP HC here), held as follows,

From Para 10,

10. Chapter XIV of Code of Criminal Procedure provides for conditions requisite for initiation of proceedings. Section 198 Sub-Section (1) proviso (c) Cr.P.C. provides that for a prosecution of an accused for an offence under Section 494 I.P.C. it shall be initiated by a complaint made by the aggrieved
person namely the wife or on her behalf by her father, mother and other relations mentioned therein. Section 2(d) of Code of Criminal Procedure defines a ‘complaint’ showing that a complaint shall be made to a Magistrate and it does not include a police report. Thus, a complaint is different from police report. In terms of Section 198 of Code of Criminal Procedure, prosecution for the offence under Section 494 I.P.C. could be initiated only by a complaint filed before the learned Magistrate. In the case at hand, the proceedings that were initiated before learned Magistrate were not out of a complaint filed before him. The case emerged on a police report. On these suppositions, one could say that the very initiation of prosecution is incorrect and against law. However, State of Andhra Pradesh passed Act 3 of 1992. By virtue of that, entry relating to Section 494 I.P.C. as mentioned in Schedule-1 of Code of Criminal Procedure at Column Nos.4 and 5 certain changes were brought in. This amendment made the offence under Section 494 I.P.C. cognizable and non-bailable. Be it noted that in terms of Section 2(c) of Code of Criminal Procedure, a cognizable offence means a case in which a police officer is entitled to arrest accused without any warrant issued by the Court. Be it also noted that Section 198 Cr.P.C. was not amended for Andhra Pradesh State. A plain reading of these provisions give an impression that Section 198 Cr.P.C. bar still holds good and therefore a prosecution for an offence under Section 494 I.P.C. could be done only by a complainant through her complaint and not by way of a police report/charge sheet. It seems this view was followed in B.Parvathi v. State of Andhra Pradesh1. However, these aspects were clarified and law was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in A.Subhash Babu v. State of A.P.2. At para No.46 of the judgment, their Lordships have laid the law that by virtue of the said amendment for State of Andhra Pradesh carried out in the first schedule of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the bar contained in Section 198 Cr.P.C. for the offence under Section 494 I.P.C. gets lifted. In that view of the matter, one could say that prosecution in this State for an offence under Section 494 I.P.C. is possible either by a complaint or by a police report.

K Jagga Rao Vs State of AP and Anr on 14 Aug 2023

Citations: [2023 Latest Caselaw 3883 AP]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/39334506/

https://www.latestlaws.com/judgements/andhra-high-court/2023/august/2023-latest-caselaw-3883-ap


Index of 494 IPC Judgments is here.

Posted in High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision A.Subash Babu Vs State of A.P. and Anr IPC 494 - Marrying again during life-time of husband or wife IPC 494 Cognizable Offence in Andhra Pradesh IPC 494 Compoundable Offence in Andhra Pradesh K Jagga Rao Vs State of AP and Anr | Leave a comment

K Sreekanth Naik Vs P Nalini and Anr on 27 Mar 2025

Posted on September 21, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court held that a non-cooperating wife with the Criminal trail who has been evading appearance before the Court,.

From Paras 3-6,

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the 1st respondent is not cooperating with the trail and has been evading appearance before the Court, even though bailable warrants were issued against the 1st respondent. It is also submitted that the bailable warrants were cancelled soon after the 1st respondent filed a memo undertaking to appear.
4. Today, when the matter was taken up for hearing, the learned counsel for the 1st respondent submits that even the petitioner was also absent on the last date of hearing, when the matter was listed for trial.
5. It is further submitted that the matter is now fixed for trial on 22.04.2017, and the 1st respondent would appear in Court and adduce the evidence.
6. Considering the submission, the Criminal Petition is disposed off with an observation that the learned Magistrate should endeavor to complete the trial as expeditiously as possible, preferable within a period of six (06) months from the date of the receipt of this order.

2025-03-27 K Sreekanth Naik Vs P Nalini and Anr on 27 Mar 2025

Citations:

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/79857987/


Thanks to Adv Ram G for the below copy. He practiced law (all subjects) at Anantapur Courts and reachable on +91-90000-32896

2025-03-27 K.Sreekanth_Naik_vs_P_Nalini_-_2025_Supreme(Online)(AP)_3987_-_Supreme

Disclaimer: This is a case that I handled myself for the husband. This is my second reportable judgment.

 

 

 

Posted in High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision K Sreekanth Naik Vs P Nalini and Anr Prevent Delays In Court Proceedings Reportable Judgement or Order Right to Speedy Trial | Leave a comment

Dudekula Khasim Vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 24 Mar 2020

Posted on July 14, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of AP High Court has set aside the 498A IPC conviction… one of the reasons being a Counterblast case.

From Para 23,

23) It is to be seen that, none of the witnesses clearly indicate as to when and also the nature of cruelty meted out to PW1. It is not as if A1 and PW1 lived only for a short period. The record shows that both of them lived together for more than three years. That being the position, some specific time period should have been mentioned with regard to the acts of harassment. Except saying that all the accused harassed, the evidence of PW1 to PW4 is silent as to the nature of harassment meted out to PW1. Whether it was beating or by any other method. The usage of word ‘harassed’ in loose manner, in my view, cannot be taken as amounting to cruelty, unless, the evidence disclosing the nature of the harassment falling within the meaning of cruelty as deposed in 498A IPC. Further, as observed earlier, the nature of harassment spoken to by PW1 to PW4 are inconsistent with each other. Each witness is improving the case. What is spoken to by one witness is not spoken to by another witness.

Dudekula Khasim Vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 24 Mar 2020

Index of Quash judgments here.

Posted in High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision Conviction Set Aside Dudekula Khasim Vs State of Andhra Pradesh | Leave a comment

Seerapu Shyamala Vs State of AP and Ors on 16 May 2025

Posted on June 7, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of AP High court deprecated Police calling parties to civil/land disputes for settlement talks.

From Para 3,

3. It is needless to mention that when there is a dispute with regard to a land, the police are not expected to enter into the dispute under any guise of amicable settlement of the land dispute. The police have no role to play in the settlement of land dispute. If at all there is any land dispute in between the parties, it is for the Civil Courts to entertain the dispute under Section 9 and 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and resolve the dispute. The legislative bodies like District Legal Service Authorities, Mandal Legal Service Authority, High Court Legal Service Authority and Andhra Pradesh State Legal Service Authority, can resolve the legal disputes. This kind of establishing or creating PLCF calls for settlement of land dispute would lead to multifarious litigation and create a kind of perplex in the minds of the litigants and mushroom further litigations. Therefore, respondent Nos.1 to 3 are directed not to entertain further civil issues like this under any name for settlement of the land dispute of the petitioner.

Seerapu Shyamala Vs State of AP and Ors on 16 May 2025
Posted in High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision Colourable Exercise of Power by Police Seerapu Shyamala Vs State of AP and Ors | Leave a comment

Gollamudi Ramesh Vs Modukuri Nagamani and Anr on 30 Aug 2017

Posted on June 5, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

A single Judge of AP High Court (Erstwhile Combined High Court for TS and AP) held that Evidence must not be taken via Affidavit as per Sec 126(2) CrPC in a Sec 125 CrPC case.

From Para 6,

6. Undoubtedly the proceedings before the court below are under section 125 Cr.P.C., though it is registered as FCOP the petition is only under section 125 Cr.P.C., and the procedure followed by the Judge is only under section 126 Cr.P.C. clause [2] the Court shall take evidence in the presence of the person against whom an order for payment of maintenance is proposed to be made, or, when his personal attendance is dispensed with in the presence of his pleader, and shall be recorded in the manner prescribed for summons-cases; therefore, taking advantage of 126 [2] of Cr.P.C., the learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the affidavit of the respondent cannot be permitted to be taken as evidence, like summons cases, this question no more res integra. In V.D. Solomon’s case, supra-1, the learned single Judge after elaborately dealing with section 10 of the Family Courts Act and other provisions held that in maintenance cases the proceedings under section 125 Cr.P.C., the Court has to record the evidence as contemplated under section 126 [2] Cr.P.C., and affidavits cannot be received. In view of the law declared by this Court the procedure adopted by the Judge, Additional Family Court is irregular and contrary to law. This Court in exercise of the powers conferred under section 397 and 401 of Cr.P.C., can set aside the same. Accordingly, the order passed by the court below is set aside.

Gollamudi Ramesh Vs Modukuri Nagamani and Anr on 30 Aug 2017

Citations:

Other Sources:

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5e96d23d4653d053645840b9

https://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/Browse/Case?CaseId=407102273000&Title=GOLLAMUDI-RAMESH-Vs.-MODUKURI-NAGAMANI—MODKURI-GETHA-NAGAMANI


Index of Maintenance Judges is here.

Posted in High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision CrPC 125 or BNSS 144 - Order for Maintenance of Wives Children and Parents CrPC 126 - Evidence Via Affidavit Not Allowed CrPC 126 - Procedure Gollamudi Ramesh Vs Modukuri Nagamani and Anr Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Reportable Judgement or Order | Leave a comment

Gurram Sitaramaiah Vs Gurram Siva Parvathi and Ors on 08 Jan 2024

Posted on May 3, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

 

Gurram Sitaramaiah Vs Gurram Siva Parvathi and Ors on 08 Jan 2024

Citations:

Other Sources:

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/659fafffe512165a322a69d7


Index of Maintenance Judgments is here.

Posted in High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision CrPC 125(3) or BNSS 144(3) - Sentence for a period of one month or until payment if sooner made Gurram Sitaramaiah Vs Gurram Siva Parvathi and Ors | Leave a comment

Post navigation

  • Older posts

Search within entire Content of “Shades of Knife”

My Legal X Timeline

Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Follow

AP High Court Advocate with M Tech (CS) || 12 years in 'Software Industry' as Solution Architect || Blogs at https://t.co/29CB9BzK4w || #TDPTwitter

SandeepPamarati
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
its_me_jasraj 𝗗𝗿.𝗝𝗮𝘀𝗿𝗮𝗷 𝗣𝗿𝗮𝗷𝗮𝗽𝗮𝘁𝗶 @its_me_jasraj ·
21 Jun

5 Protein Facts They Never Told You ✅

Reply on Twitter 2068689430140080559 Retweet on Twitter 2068689430140080559 120 Like on Twitter 2068689430140080559 402 X 2068689430140080559
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
mohiniwealth Mohini Maheshwari @mohiniwealth ·
22 Jun

The Dark Truth 🥷

Reply on Twitter 2068918051966513614 Retweet on Twitter 2068918051966513614 58 Like on Twitter 2068918051966513614 233 X 2068918051966513614
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
shree_2_2 श्री @shree_2_2 ·
21 Jun

He spoke on behalf of all nationalists loved this side of Anand sir😅😅😅

Reply on Twitter 2068683121504170027 Retweet on Twitter 2068683121504170027 317 Like on Twitter 2068683121504170027 817 X 2068683121504170027
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
shoneekapoor ShoneeKapoor @shoneekapoor ·
20 Jun

Judge Calls Wife’s Beating “Blessing”? Gender Reverse Karke Dekho

A husband tells the court that his wife beats him. In a viral clip from Gwalior Bench proceedings, the judge is heard saying:

“Husband who gets beaten up by his wife is a lucky man. That beating is a blessing.

Reply on Twitter 2068312690423185883 Retweet on Twitter 2068312690423185883 257 Like on Twitter 2068312690423185883 490 X 2068312690423185883
Load More

Recent Posts

  • Pavul Yesu Dhasan Vs Registrar SHRC of TN and Ors on 30 Apr 2025 June 18, 2026
  • Manoj Kumar Vs Nita Bharti on 17 Mar 2026 June 17, 2026
  • Cruelty as a Criminal Offence Explained June 12, 2026
  • Bail Compliance Undertaking Format – Draft, Legal Requirements & Sample Template June 12, 2026
  • Warning Signs of Escalating Matrimonial Litigation – Early Red Flags Every Spouse Should Recognize June 12, 2026

Most Read Posts

  • Reply to Section 41A CrPC Notice – Format with Legal Explanation (4,939 views)
  • Anu Aggarwal Vs Sushant Aggarwal on 20 Jan 2026 (3,473 views)
  • Umme Farva Vs State of U.P. and Anr on 14 Jan 2026 (3,359 views)
  • Charge Sheet and Final Report Explained (2,808 views)
  • Regular Bail Application Format (Section 437/439 CrPC) (2,189 views)
  • Neha Lal Vs Abhishek Kumar on 20 Jan 2026 (1,998 views)
  • Arrest Procedure in 498A cases after Arnesh Kumar (1,929 views)
  • Discharge Application Format in 498A Case – Draft, Procedure & Sample Template (1,772 views)
  • Can You Travel Abroad After an FIR Is Registered? – Legal Position Explained (1,685 views)
  • Atul Kumar Bajpai Vs State of UP and Anr on 17 Sep 2025 (1,536 views)

Tags

Reportable Judgement or Order (433)2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision (413)Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes (382)Landmark Case (381)1-Judge Bench Decision (362)Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to (293)Work-In-Progress Article (215)3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision (101)Sandeep Pamarati (92)Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty (80)Issued or Recommended Guidelines or Directions or Protocols to be followed (71)Perjury Under 340 CrPC (66)Absurd Or After Thought Or Baseless Or False Or General Or Inherently Improbable Or Improved Or UnSpecific Or Omnibus Or Vague Allegations (61)Reprimands or Setbacks to YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh (49)Summary Post (47)CrPC 482 - Quash (43)HM Act 13 - Divorce Granted to Husband (42)Legal Terrorism (41)Divorce granted on Cruelty ground (41)Not Authentic copy hence to be replaced (40)

Categories

Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification (753)Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments (328)High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (186)High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification (164)High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification (112)High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification (93)Legal Procedure (77)High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification (70)High Court of Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification (61)LLB Study Material (59)General Study Material (56)High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification (52)Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications (50)High Court of Kerala Judgment or Order or Notification (46)Prakasam DV Cases (46)Judicial Activism (for Public Benefit) (45)District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification (44)High Court of Madhya Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (38)High Court of Gujarat Judgment or Order or Notification (28)High Court of Calcutta Judgment or Order or Notification (27)

Recent Comments

  • eCourts India on Compromise-Based Quashing in Matrimonial Cases – Complete Legal Strategy
  • The Divorce Law Firm on Life Cycle Stages of a Divorce case
  • The Divorce Law Firm on Life Cycle Stages of a Divorce case
  • ShadesOfKnife on Sandeep Pamarati Vs Ungrateful Knife (IPC 498A Case)
  • KONURU VINAYKUMAR on Sandeep Pamarati Vs Ungrateful Knife (IPC 498A Case)

Archives of SoK

  • June 2026 (9)
  • May 2026 (24)
  • April 2026 (33)
  • March 2026 (42)
  • February 2026 (30)
  • January 2026 (21)
  • December 2025 (2)
  • November 2025 (3)
  • October 2025 (17)
  • September 2025 (12)
  • August 2025 (5)
  • July 2025 (10)
  • June 2025 (15)
  • May 2025 (3)
  • April 2025 (10)
  • March 2025 (7)
  • February 2025 (8)
  • January 2025 (1)
  • December 2024 (3)
  • November 2024 (4)
  • October 2024 (16)
  • September 2024 (15)
  • August 2024 (14)
  • July 2024 (11)
  • June 2024 (18)
  • May 2024 (13)
  • April 2024 (9)
  • March 2024 (23)
  • February 2024 (15)
  • January 2024 (11)
  • December 2023 (11)
  • November 2023 (9)
  • October 2023 (13)
  • September 2023 (12)
  • August 2023 (15)
  • July 2023 (17)
  • June 2023 (11)
  • May 2023 (6)
  • April 2023 (5)
  • March 2023 (10)
  • February 2023 (9)
  • January 2023 (12)
  • December 2022 (12)
  • November 2022 (8)
  • October 2022 (13)
  • September 2022 (17)
  • August 2022 (10)
  • July 2022 (21)
  • June 2022 (27)
  • May 2022 (23)
  • April 2022 (32)
  • March 2022 (17)
  • February 2022 (6)
  • January 2022 (2)
  • December 2021 (7)
  • November 2021 (7)
  • October 2021 (6)
  • September 2021 (10)
  • August 2021 (31)
  • July 2021 (45)
  • June 2021 (17)
  • May 2021 (17)
  • April 2021 (18)
  • March 2021 (58)
  • February 2021 (14)
  • January 2021 (50)
  • December 2020 (35)
  • November 2020 (68)
  • October 2020 (67)
  • September 2020 (28)
  • August 2020 (41)
  • July 2020 (20)
  • June 2020 (36)
  • May 2020 (40)
  • April 2020 (38)
  • March 2020 (26)
  • February 2020 (43)
  • January 2020 (35)
  • December 2019 (34)
  • November 2019 (4)
  • October 2019 (18)
  • September 2019 (57)
  • August 2019 (33)
  • July 2019 (12)
  • June 2019 (18)
  • May 2019 (5)
  • April 2019 (19)
  • March 2019 (58)
  • February 2019 (11)
  • January 2019 (90)
  • December 2018 (97)
  • November 2018 (43)
  • October 2018 (31)
  • September 2018 (73)
  • August 2018 (47)
  • July 2018 (143)
  • June 2018 (92)
  • May 2018 (97)
  • April 2018 (59)
  • March 2018 (8)

Blogroll

  • Daaman Promoting Harmony 0
  • Fight against Legal Terrorism Fight against Legal Terrorism along with MyNation Foundation 0
  • Good Morning Good Morning News 0
  • Insaaf India Insaaf Awareness Movement 0
  • MyNation Hope Foundation Wiki 0
  • MyNation.net Equality, Justice and Harmony 0
  • Sarvepalli Legal 0
  • Save Indian Family Save Indian Family Movement 0
  • SIF Chandigarh SIF Chandigarh 0
  • The Male Factor The Male Factor 0
  • Unitedmen Foundation a dedicated community forged with the mission to unite men facing legal challenges in marital disputes. 0
  • Vaastav Foundation The Social Reality 0
  • Vinayak my2centsworth – This blog is for honest law abiding men, married or planning to get married 0
  • Voice4india Indian Laws, Non-profits, Environment 0
  • Writing Law Writing Law by Ankur 0

RSS Cloudflare Status

  • ARN (Stockholm) on 2026-06-25 June 25, 2026
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Jun 25, 00:00 - 05:00 UTC Jun 19, 14:18 UTC Scheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in ARN (Stockholm) datacenter on 2026-06-25 between 00:00 and 05:00 UTC.Traffic might be re-routed from this location, hence there is a possibility of a slight increase in latency during this maintenance window […]
  • ARN (Stockholm) on 2026-06-24 June 24, 2026
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Jun 24, 00:00 - 05:00 UTC Jun 19, 13:08 UTC Scheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in ARN (Stockholm) datacenter on 2026-06-24 between 00:00 and 05:00 UTC.Traffic might be re-routed from this location, hence there is a possibility of a slight increase in latency during this maintenance window […]
  • MSP (Minneapolis) on 2026-06-23 June 23, 2026
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Jun 23, 03:00 - 08:00 UTC Jun 18, 18:30 UTC Scheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in MSP (Minneapolis) datacenter on 2026-06-23 between 03:00 and 08:00 UTC.Traffic might be re-routed from this location, hence there is a possibility of a slight increase in latency during this maintenance window […]

RSS List of Spam Server IPs from Project Honeypot

  • 34.14.86.214 | SD June 22, 2026
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 12 | First: 2026-01-12 | Last: 2026-06-22
  • 34.52.210.100 | S June 22, 2026
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 2 | First: 2026-06-22 | Last: 2026-06-22
  • 45.174.88.88 | S June 22, 2026
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 10 | First: 2025-08-07 | Last: 2026-06-22
Owned and Operated by Advocate Sandeep Pamarati
Proudly powered by WordPress
Theme: Flint by Star Verte LLC

Bad Behavior has blocked 1252 access attempts in the last 7 days.

pixel