In this judgment, Justice B.Siva Sankara Rao has ruled that the 1 year limitation as applicable to DV Cases is only for Cognizance of the case, and thereby affirmed that this aspect has to be brought up before cognizance is taken of the case by the court, not once proceedings have started.
Interesting Point !!!
This quash judgment is from Hon’ble AP High Court at Hyderabad, which is based on the conclusion that there are no specific allegations on A2 and A3, parents of the husband (A1).
Another important aspect is that this quash is done also based on another quash order for same High Court in regards to other accused (A4, A5 and A6) in this very same case, specifically because of same allegations on them too.
[google-drive-embed url=”https://drive.google.com/file/d/137Au9pa288Id2UqPir4o_zi1FcdX3_rq/preview?usp=drivesdk” title=”Hanumanthu Naik Vs Nirmala Bai on 11 June, 2018.pdf” icon=”https://drive-thirdparty.googleusercontent.com/16/type/application/pdf” width=”100%” height=”400″ style=”embed”]
In this quash judgment, AP High Court has held that
“The acts of the persons to redress their grievances through the available mode cannot, at any rate, be termed as acts made with an intention to defame the persons, against whom grievance is expressed.”
Citations:
Other Source links:
The Index for Defamation Judgments is here.
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
This petition was filed seeking a writ of mandamus for declaring the Notice issued by the Station House Officer, Nacharam Police Station in accordance with and in terms of Section 41A of the Code of Criminal Procedure (henceforth referred to as ‘the Code’), as bad in law.
However, even assuming that the allegation made by the petitioner against the Police that he has been detained from 9-30 am to 8-30 pm in the Police Station continuously for eleven long hours is true and correct, the same would not render the exercise of power under Section 41-A of the Code by the Police arbitrary. At the most, any such conduct and attitude of the Police would amount to violation of the human rights assured to the petitioner. Any complaint of breach of human rights by the Police, first of all, should have been drawn to the attention of the Superior Police Officers, such as, the Assistant Commissioner of Police / Deputy Commissioner of Police / Superintendent of Police, etc. If there was no redressal at their hands, the matter can also be agitated before the State Human Rights Commission. But, that cannot be converted into a ground for quashing the Notice under Section 41A of the Code.
Justice M.SATYANARAYANA MURTHY in this Andhra Pradesh High Court judgment clarifies the non-maintainability of revision under Sections 397 and 401 of CrPC, in a Domestic Violence Case, when the Act itself has a section 29 for the purpose of revision (as well as Appeal).
Citations : [2017 SCC ONLINE HYD 381], [2018 ALT CRI 2 70]
Other Sources:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/150555325/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5a28d6c54a9326135bfa09ab
Index of all Domestic Violence Cases is here.
In this Andhra Pradesh High Court judgment, Dr. Justice D Siva Sankara Rao ordered that as no relation exists in the nature of marriage, no maintenance is maintainable in section 125 as well as Domestic Violence Cases.
Relying on the landmark judgment of Apex Court in HIRAL P.HARSORA v. KUSUM NAROTTAMDAS HARSORA“, Andhra Pradesh High Court has delivered this wonderful quash judgment, confirming that as long as no domestic relationship exists between parties, Domestic Violence case can not be maintainable.
Citation:
Indiankanoon.org or Casemine link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/189636982/
The index page is here.
Very good judgment wherein, false DVC is dismissed on all family members, except husband, for the ground of general and sweeping allegation. More interestingly, same allegations were used to file a false IPC 498A case also earlier.
In the instant case, by making the very same general and sweeping allegations, the petitioner get the respondents 2 to 6 involved in the domestic violence case. From the nature of the allegations levelled against the respondents 2 to 6, the intention of the complainant seems to be that she wanted to involve all the relatives of her husband in the domestic violence case. By examining the facts of the present case, in the light of the principles enunciated by the Supreme Court in the above referred judgments, I am thoroughly convinced that the respondents 2 to 6 were involved in the DVC on account of the vindictive attitude of the petitioner/wife, continuing them in the DVC will not yield any useful purpose except causing harassment and hardship to them. Both the Courts below, therefore, are perfectly justified in taking the view that the cognizance of the case shall not been taken against the respondents 2 to 6/A2 to A6.
Citation: [2013 ALD CRI 1 634], [2013 CRILJ 4653]
Indiankanoon.org or Casemine link: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5608f8bae4b0149711143245
The index page is here.
This judgment of Alimony enhancement is from Andhra Pradesh High Court
This is a Quash Judgment from Hon’ble AP high Court on grounds such as
Indiankanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/159121592/
Citation:
Bad Behavior has blocked 471 access attempts in the last 7 days.
