Here are all kinds of Bail matters, granted/denied, Regular/Anticipatory etc
- Station Bail
- Regular Bail Orders u/s 437
- Anticipatory Bail Orders u/s 438 CrPC
- Default or Statutory Bail u/s 167(2)
- Transit Bail
- NBW Judgments
Index to MASTER sitemap here.
Category: Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications
Index of all Summary Case Law Pages on Shades of Knife
This can be considered as a sitemap of all Summary pages on my site, Shades of Knife.
Delivery of Justice
- All Bare Acts of India here.
- All Compulsory Registration of Marriage in India – Both Acts and Rules here.
- All Dowry related case laws here.
- All Dowry Harassment Judgments under Section 498A of IPC here.
- All Bigamy Judgments under Sections 494 and 495 of IPC here.
- All Matters related to Exemption from Personal Appearance (u/s 205 CrPC) here.
- All Bail Matters here.
- All Condone Delay Judgments here.
- All Transfer Petition Judgments here.
- All Look Out Circular Decisions here.
- All Compensation Judgments for Motor Vehicle Accidents or other mishaps here.
- All Defamation Judgments here.
- All Domestic Violence Judgments here.
- All Divorce Judgments here.
- All Maintenance Judgments here.
- All Acquittal from Criminal Matrimonial Cases here.
- All Perjury Judgments here.
- All Discharge Judgments u/s 227 Cr.P.C. here.
- All Discharge Judgments u/s 239 Cr.P.C. here.
- All Quash Judgment u/s 482 Cr.P.C. here.
- All Amicable ways of working with Advocates here.
- All Life Cycles of various cases here.
- All Passport Judgments here.
- All Contempt of Court Judgments here.
- All Legal templates and Drafting here.
- All Antics of Bar Council of India or State Bar Councils here.
Administration of Justice:
- All Protection from Police High-handedness here.
- All Reliefs from Judiciary here.
- All publicly available legal research tools here.
- All Video Conferencing Guidelines of Courts in India here.
- Usage of A4 sheets with Double-Sided Printing for all purposed in Court here.
- eCourts Project
- AI-based Legalbots
- Various rights covered under Article 21 (Protection of life and personal liberty) of Constitution of India here.
- Staff on Administration of Justice, such as Registry Staff can not exercise Judicial functions such as deciding/dismissing applications/petitions based on their maintainability. See here.
- All Legal strategies and Defence here.
- All Law Concepts explained here.
Personal Interest
- All Legal Goals to Achieve under Judicial Activism (Via Public Interest Litigation) here.
- All Decisions of High Courts to be made applicable in Other High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution of India here.
- All false cases laid on me [Sandeep Pamarati Vs Ungrateful Knife] here.
Dowry Prohibition Act Judgments
Here are a collection of judgment pertaining to Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 and other cases involving Dowry element.
- Sarla Prabhakar Waghmare Vs State of Maharashtra And Others on 10 April 1989 [SC:Cruelty should be such that, as to make woman commit harm to herself]
- Sankar Prasad Shaw and Ors Vs The State and Anr on 27 Jul 1990 [CalHC: Agreement is prerequisite for Sec 4 conviction]
- Arjun Dhondiba Kamble and Ors Vs The State of Maharashtra on 14 February 1992 [BomHC: Any property demanded not in connection of marriage is not dowry]
- Harikumar Vs State of Karnataka on 22 October 1993 [SC: Section 8A of Dowry Prohibition Act is not unconstitutional]
- Shamnsaheb M. Multtani Vs State of Karnataka on 24 January 2001 [Presumption does not let Prosecution free from establishing their case before burden of proof shifts to accused]
- Pandurang Shivram Kawathkar Vs State of Maharashtra on 5 February 2001 [BomHC: Dowry demand is made out anytime before, during or after marriage, as long it is in connection with marriage]
- State of U.P Vs Santosh Kumar and Ors on 3 Sep 2009 [SC: Giving dowry under demand is a crime u/s 3 of DP Act read with Sec 2 of the DP Act]
- Pooja Saxena vs State and Anr on 20 October 2010 [DHC: Dowry giver is protected from prosecution]
- Sharanappa S. Kallur Vs State of Karnataka on 07 Jun 2011 [KarHC: Relies on this case here]
- Uma Devi Vs State and Anr on 01 Aug 2011 [DHC: Dowry giver is protected from prosecution]
- Vipin Jaiswal Vs State of A.P. on 13 March 2013 (Overruled)
- Manjunath Eshwar Vs State of TN on 16 Apr 2013 [MadHC: Relies on SC decision State of U.P Vs Santosh Kumar and Ors here]
- Surinder Singh Vs State of Haryana on 13 November 2013 [Demand for dowry in connection with marriage was available so, Dowry Demand allegation is made out]
- Gunakala Durga Rani Vs Gunakala Sudhakar on 6 January 2015 [Dowry not proved in a DV Case]
- Rajinder Singh Vs State of Punjab on 26 February 2015 [Landmark: Demand for dowry in connection with marriage]
- Sudha Vs State (NCT of Delhi) on 4 January 2016 []
- Chembeti Srilakshmi Vs Chembeti Sreenu on 7 January, 2016 [Dowry element is time-barred due to AP DP Rules 1998]
- Shaik Mehataj @ Jareena Vs Shaik Humayun on 3 October, 2016 []
- Korimerla Videesha Vs State of A.P. and Anr on 12 October, 2018 [Invoked AP DP Rules 1998]
- Shivendra Raizada and Others Vs State of U.P. and Anr on 6 December 2018 [Gifts are not Dowry]
- M. Sudarshan Goud and Ors Vs The State of AP on 24 April 2020 [Dowry should either be given or agreed to be given at or before or after the marriage in connection with the marriage]
- Rajesh Chaddha Vs State of Uttar Pradesh on 13 May 2025 [SC : Vague and omnibus allegations cannot sustain a conviction under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.]
Bare Act, Amendments, Rules etc
Dowry Prohibition Act here.
State-enacted Rules are here.
MASTER SITEMAP here.
Frequently Asked Questions – Dowry Prohibition Act (DPA) Jurisprudence in India
The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 is a special law enacted to prohibit the giving, taking, or demanding of dowry at the time of marriage or afterward. It criminalizes dowry practices and provides for penalties, including imprisonment and fines, to deter society from this social evil.
Under the Act, dowry means any property or valuable security given, taken, or demanded as a condition for marriage. This includes cash, gifts, ornaments, vehicles, real estate, or any other valuable items provided to the bride or groom’s family. Any demand for additional gifts or money after marriage is also treated as dowry.
In addition to the Dowry Prohibition Act, other penal provisions are often invoked in dowry cases, including:
- Section 498A IPC – Cruelty by husband or relatives
- Section 304B IPC – Dowry death
- Section 34 IPC – Common intention
These sections are commonly applied in conjunction to address cruelty, harassment, and fatal incidents related to dowry demands.
Yes. The demand for dowry alone is an offence under the Act. Even if the dowry is not physically delivered, the mere act of demanding money or valuables in connection with marriage amounts to an offence and attracts legal consequences.
Yes. The law recognizes that dowry harassment may involve multiple persons. Therefore, relatives of the husband, such as in-laws, can also be prosecuted if they actively participate in demanding or pressuring the bride for dowry.
Punishment varies depending on the severity:
- Simple dowry demand may attract imprisonment and a fine.
- In cases of dowry death (death within 7 years of marriage due to dowry harassment), enhanced punishment under Section 304B IPC is applied.
Courts have often noted that dowry offences are serious and socially harmful, justifying strict penalties.
Bail is not automatic in dowry-related offences, especially under serious sections like 304B IPC or when there is strong evidence of cruelty or death. However, both anticipatory bail and regular bail may be considered based on the facts, severity, and compliance with investigation procedures.
Yes. A fair trial entails examination and cross-examination of witnesses. Courts have emphasized that complainants and accused both must be afforded a chance to be heard, and evidence must be tested impartially during trial proceedings.
Refusal to have sexual relations alone does not constitute dowry harassment. However, when such refusal is coupled with coercion, cruelty, or demand for dowry, it may form part of evidence for cruelty under Section 498A IPC or for establishing harassment in dowry practice cases.
Yes. Dowry death convictions have been upheld on circumstantial evidence, especially where:
- Death occurs within 7 years of marriage,
- There is proof of harassment, cruelty, and dowry demand,
- The conduct of the accused suggests involvement.
Courts have clarified that even in the absence of direct evidence, consistent and cogent circumstantial evidence can lead to conviction.
Medical and forensic evidence often play a critical role, especially in dowry death cases. Courts rely on autopsy reports, injury examinations, and forensic findings to build the prosecution’s case on cause of death, timing of injuries, and whether they align with alleged cruelty or harassment.
Once a dowry-related FIR is registered and investigation begins, the prosecution proceeds in the name of the State, not the complainant. Therefore, withdrawal of an FIR depends on court approval and merits under Section 439/482 CrPC, and is not solely at the complainant’s discretion.
Legal Litigation against Y S Jagan Mohan Reddy
Here is a compendium of litigation against Y S Jagan Mohan Reddy.
- C.C. No. 01 of 2012 [Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases at Hyderabad; Sections 120-B, 379, 409, 411, 420, 427, 447 and 468 of Indian Penal Code (for short “I.P.C.”)and under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act (for short “P.C.Act”)]
- C.C. No. 25 of 2013 [Principal Special Judge for CBI Cases at Hyderabad; Sections 120-B and 420 of I.P.C. and under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of P.C.Act]
- W.P. (Civil) No. 4124 of 2020 at Delhi High Court [Anna YSR Congress Party Vs The Election Commissioner of India thru it’s Chief Election Commissioner and Anr]. Last update here.
Ashwinbhai Kamsubhai Rathod Vs Bhailalbhai Kalubhai Pandav BM Chudasama and others on 12 May 2020
High Court of Gujarat has quashed the December 2017 election of Gujarat’s Law Minister, Bhupendrasinh Manubha Chudasama to the State’s Legislative Assembly as violative of the Representation of People’s Act, 1951
Latest: The LawMin appealed against High Court judgment at Supreme Court.
Citations: []
Other Source links: https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/such-an-election-should-not-be-permitted-to-hold-the-field-gujarat-hc-quashes-state-law-minister-bm-chudasamas-2017-election
Circus feats of the YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh
A curated list of mangled-up decisions of incumbent YCP Govt. of Andhra Pradesh and the consequences suffered by public thereof and how Hon’ble Courts and Tribunals of this Great Nation did their best to protect State of Andhra Pradesh and it’s people. For legal litigation against incumbent Chief Minister in his personal capacity, go here.
Disclaimer: These are many more which I may not be aware of or may not have details to capture on this page. If you want to share such information, please use the Contact me page.
1. Destruction of Prajaa Vedika
2. Review of Power Purchase Agreements
3. Reduction of Z+ category security cover for Opposition Leader N. Chandrababu Naidu
4. Reverse Tendering in Polavaram HydroPower Project Contract
5. Disclose Government Stand on Swiss Challenge
6. Failure in Transferring of Lands to Bundar Port
7. Give reasons for removal of Agricultural Market Yard Chairmen
8. Direction to APERC to finalize Power prices
9. Decision by Executive Council in contrary to Universities Act
10. What is action taken by Government when School uniforms and text books are sold for inflated prices?
11. What is the Government policy to allocate Government lands to Private individuals and Organizations?
12. Notices to Botsa and Buggana on the Committee regd Capital Amaravati
13. Not conducting Panchayat Elections even after High Court directions
Finalize reservations before Jan 7th 2PM and share with SEC
BC reservations reduced to 24% from 34%
14. Basis/norm for giving payment for Pasters, Imams and Mauzans
15. Cannot dissolve Temple Boards as per Government wish
16. Why payments to Solar and Tidal Power Generation companies are pending?
- High Court says, APSPDCL should immediately Pay the pending dues to Solar, Tidal Power Generation companies, as committed to them to be paid in 4 weeks here.
17. Liquor Prohibition
- Bars reduced from 840 to 530. Madya vimochana Prachara Committee. Not sure how much of public funds are grabbed under this guise. Fake brands. Exponential rates.
- Why no reduction in retail liquor business in AP in Prohibition is target? What is the reason for reducing bars? 04-12-2019
- Why advance notice not issued to Bar owners before reducing them?
- Stay on Old Bar licenses and Issue of New Licenses
18. YCP Colors to Panchayat Buildings
- Muppa Venkateswara Rao Vs State of AP on 10 March 2020 [WP(PIL) allowed by AP High Court]
- State of AP Vs Muppa Venkateswara Rao on 23 March 2020 [SLP dismissed by Supreme Court]
- G.O. Ms. No. 623 [Guidelines on Colour combination theme for painting of Gram Panchayat Buildings; Attempted Disguising Technique: Colours representing Various revolutions]
- Suryadevara Venkata Rao Vs State of AP on 05 May 2020 [High Court suspended the G.O. Ms. No.623 and it’s implementation]
- State of AP Vs Suryadevara Venkata Rao on 03 June 2020 [Supreme Court dumped the Civil Appeal against above High Court Judgment]
19. Mandatory English medium in School Education system
- High Court: Will recover funds spent on Printing Academic books, running of classes from responsible officers.
- Dr. Srinivas Guntupalli Vs State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors on 15 April 2020 [G.O Issued by Govt of Andhra Pradesh is held to by lacking total application of mind]
- G.O. Ms. No.20 [Collect feedback from Parents of Children regd their preference for Medium of Instruction in all Government schools in the State – Dt 21 April 2020; Attempted Disguising Technique: Parents will choose English this time as their preferred medium of teaching for their children]
- Supreme Court
20. How can you appoint In-charge Chairman where is an incumbent Chariman for APPSC?
- No one interferes in the duties of APPSC Chairman Uday Bhaskar
21. Damodar Naidu has qualifications to become V.C. Dismissal of Petitions challenging his appointment
22. Suspension of Jasthi Krishna Kishore
23. First installment of Rs. 1845 Crores received under NREGS for 2019-20 from Central Government not deposited into Gram Panchayats. Deposit within 1 month.
24. Three Capital Cities for Andhra Pradesh
- Why impose section 144 CrPC on peacefully agitating farmers for Amaravati?
- Why violence was unleashed on women protesters and no women police to apprehend them?
- No movement of Government offices from Amaravati until the petitions about Capital city are pending. If moved, State Government and Department Officials will be liable for consequences and spent amount will be recovered from personal pockets.
- Submit all reports from GN Rao Committee and BCG.
- Andhra Pradesh to have 3 Capital cities (Kurnool-Judicial Capital, Visakhapatnam-Administrative/Executive Capital and Amaravathi-Legislative Capital)
- Rajadhani Rythu Parirakshnana Samithi challenged the Trifurcation of State in the guise of decentralized development/administration here.
- Insider Trading Allegations case
- Chekka Guru Murali Mohan and Anr Vs State of AP and Anr on 19 Jan 2021
- State of AP Vs Chekka Guru Murali Mohan and Ors on 19 Jul 2021 (Supreme Court crushed the Petition!)
- Chekka Guru Murali Mohan and Anr Vs State of AP and Anr on 19 Jan 2021
25. Revoke the GO pertaining to the appointment of EO for Sri Durgamalelswara Swamy temple, Vijayawada
26. YS Vivekananda Reddy Murder case
- What are the objections in entrusting YS Vivekananda Reddy murder case to CBI? YS Jagan reddy himself demanded for CBI investigation while being a Opposition Leader. What is your current stand after coming to Power now?
27. GVMC Elections
- When is the election notification for GVMC going to be announced?
28. Photos of YS Jagan Reddy on Panchayat Buildings
- No photo of PM in Parliament, No Chief Justice photo in High Court. But why CM Photo on Panchayat Buildings? [Investigate these case laws: https://www.casemine.com/search/in/Common%20Cause%20advertisements%20public%20funds]
29. Navaratnaalu – Pedalaku illu
- High Court: Can not give Amaravati lands to landless poor. No one side game like this allowed.
- How can you grab lands of poor? Assigned lands turned into House sites? Grab from one poor and dole out to another? KVPS Writ
- Trying to Grab Kakinada Mangrove forest area. Case details here. Attempted Disguising Technique: to construct homes for poor
- Another set of cases here.
- Converting Poramboke lands into Assessed Waste lands in Kadapa. Case details here. Attempted Disguising Technique: to grant house sites to poor
- Land grab in East Godavavi District. Case details here. Attempted Disguising Technique: To construct Gram Sachivalayam, Raithu Bharosa Kendram, YSR Clinic
- Attempt to allot lands to people from Economically Weaker Sections out side Amaravati region here.
- Summary dismissal at Supreme Court here.
30. Funds released under Central Employment Scheme
- Why funds released under Central Employment Scheme for the year 2018-19 to the tune of Rs. 1134 Cr not disbursed?
31. Obstructing the peaceful tour of N Chandrababu Naidu in Vizag
- DGP to be present in Court and give explanation how can notice be issued under section 151 CrPC.
- Under what authority/rule was the notice under 151 CrPC issued to NCBN
- Why no action is taken on officers who issues illegal notice under section 151 CrPC?
32. Withdrawal by MNCs
33. Trying to sell away Government Property
–
34. All TDP schemes renamed to YSR/Jagananna Schemes
NTR Vaidya seva Trust into YSR Arogya Sri
35. Shutter Down to Anna Canteens
36. Attempting to Abolish the Legislative Council of AP
37. Sand mining
38. Removal of L.V. Subramanyam
39. Non implementation of Disha Act
40. Special Status to AP
41. Decision of State Election Commissioner to postpone Panchayat Elections in AP by 6 weeks due to Pandemic nCOVID-19 (Coronavirus outbreak)
- State of AP Vs AP State Election Commission on 18 March 2020 [Supreme Court did not interfere with the Decision of SEC to postpone Panchayat elections]
- Andhra Pradesh Ordinance No. 5 of 2020 Promulgated on 10 April 2020 [Via this Ordinance, Rules were framed reducing SEC tenure from 6 years to 3 and making retired Judges only criteria to become a SEC, both squarely targetted to get Shri, Nimmagadda Ramesh Kumar out of SEC role and engage Sri Justice V.Kanagaraj, Retired High Court Judge, as SEC of A.P State Election Commission; Attempted Disguising Technique: Ordinance to reform SEC, not sack Ramesh]
- The Ordinance No 5 of 2020 got quashed and along with it all other related GOs got kicked into drain, via [Dr N Ramesh Kumar IAS Vs State of AP on 29 May 2020].
- State of AP Vs N Ramesh Kumar IAS and Ors [Supreme Court held that…]
- State Election Commission also filed SLP which got tagged with above case here. So, no wastage of page for it.
- N Ramesh Kumar Vs Nilam Sawhney and Ors on 17 July 2020 [Contempt Proceedings initiated against Chief Secretary Nilam Sawhney and others]
42. Violation of Lockdown Norms of MLAs and Cabinet Ministers of the incumbent party
43. Styrene Gas Leakage in Vizag (Visakhapatnam) on the early hours 3.35AM on 07 May 2020 from LG Polymers
44. Sale of TTD properties donated by devotees
45. Suspense of AB Venkateshwara Rao (DG) IPS
- The DGP of AP Police was suspended but AP High Court reinstated him back into service here.
- The routine began and the SLP was filed at Supreme Court which granted a Stay on the operation of the Order of High Court here. 4 Lakhs was paid to the Legal team of a Senior Counsel and a AoR.
46. Lack of medical equipment for Corona Warrior such as PPE Kits
- Harassment to Dr Sudhakar [Since he was not in CBI/Police Custody, he was ordered to be released from the Mental Hospital]
- AP Police have brought in more illegal rules than those in Bihar.
47. Change in electricity slabs
48. Reduction in Government Pension Holders
49. Baseless Quid Pro Quo Allegation in Amaravati land dealings
50. Scam in purchase of COVID-19 kits
51. Pre-recorded and heavily Edited name-sake Press meets
52. Pension at 45 years only
53. Baseless Allegation of Chandrababu Naidu Benami
54. Baseless Allegation Kodi-katti
55. Baseless Allegation of SC/ST sub-plan funds diversion
56. Baseless Allegation of 100 Crores corruption in Pattiseema project
57. Baseless Allegation that Estimations are increased in Polavaram project (Allegation)
- Totally forgetting the above Baseless allegations vehemently trumpeted, request was sent to PM, begging to approve the estimates (yes, same estimates which were passed during NCBN tenure in 2017-18) here.
58. YCP Trolls (Incl MLA and MP) attack the Judges of AP High Court
- High Court of Andhra Pradesh Vs State of Andhra Pradesh [Trolling due to adverse order in English Medium case]
59. YCP MLA Alla Rama Krishna’s attempt to get TDP National Party Headquarters demolished
- Alla Rama Krishna Reddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 23 July 2020 [High Court questioned the Public interest in the PIL and dismissed it]
60. Delegation of powers to Secretaries of respective Departments to lodge complaints
- GO is available here.
61. Filing of time-barred SLPs (invariably to spend public money on some benefactors)
Despite fully aware that the petition is hopelessly time-barred, SLPs are being filed at Supreme Court and Supreme clearly observed it and put it in it’s order for eternity here.
62. Usage of photographs of State Functionaries in Government-funded Advertisements
A PIL was filed seeking removal of Photos of Government functionaries such as CMs in Government-funded Advertisements here.
63. Appointment of N Harinath Reddy as Assistant Solicitor General for High Court of Andhra Pradesh
Adv Solomon Raju Manchala challenged the Appointment of N Harinath Reddy as Assistant Solicitor General for High Court of Andhra Pradesh here.
64. Depriving pregnant, Old women of pension
AP High Court Ordered the State government to make pension payments and ascertain the eligibility of the petitioners in Gram Sabha after giving opportunity to the petitioners here.
65. Filing of false cases for possession of liquor
AP High Court, while disposing a couple of writ petitions, has ordered the Government to implement G.O.No.411 in letter and spirit and the action of the State in registering the crime on the ground that the alcohol is brought into Andhra Pradesh from the neighboring State is held to be bad in law. Go here.
66. Baseless Criminal Cases on Journalists and Social Media
- A false case was registered by AP CID on Telugu One YouTube channel owner but High Court Quashed it with an elaborate lecture on what is Police duty (thereby what is NOT) here.
67. Baseless Criminal case of Ex-Attorney General
- A false case was registered against Ex Attorney General Dammalapati Srinivas here.
- A Stay was granted against all further investigation and any coercive action on any of the alleged accused person.
- As usual, the stay was challenged in the Supreme Court here.
68. Tapping of Judges of AP High Court
- As the adverse orders against the ill-moves of State Govt are sky-rocketing on weekly basis, Govt seems to have stooped to Phone tapping of Judges. The case is here.
- High Court has scathing remarks against State Government to the tune of invoking Article 356 of Constitution of India… I am usre no better sense will prevail. Good for people of AP.
69. Land grabbing for Gannavaram Airport expansion, without paying Compensation to Land Owners
- State govt permitted Airports Authority of India (AAI) to proceed with expansion of Gannavaram airport without paying compensation for the land grabbed from
70. Hounding of Thullur MRO Anne Sudheer Babu
For doing his duties, Thullur MRO Anne Sudheer Babu is being hounded fruitlessly.
- AP HC had stayed all the proceedings until further order here.
- As usual, the junta went to SC and got a favorable Order here. Or so minions think and celebrated.
71. Demolition of Property of GITAM University
Suddenly, the District administration wakes up to the fact that certain portion of the land in use by the GITAM University was unauthorized and decides to demolish in the early dead night hours on 24th October, 2020
- Check out the proceedings here.
72. Arrest in violation of Arnesh Kumar judgment (41A CrPC)
For a facebook post, Jangala Sambasiva Rao was booked and arrested in just a day and the bozo Magistrate granted Remand too. High Court held that both Police and Magistrate violated the landmark precedent in Arnesh Kumar judgment and demanded reports from both here.
73. Government Guesthouse at Kapuluppada, Visakhapatnam
In a sly attempt to shift Executive Capital from Amaravati to Visakhapatnam, the State Government transferred 30 Acres from Greyhounds to Collector Visakhapatnam. High Court on a PIL, demanded Govt to produce complete set of plans before beginning alienation of lands here.
75. Review of all decisions taken by TDP Government
- Varla Ramaiah garu filed a Writ in AP HC here and obtained an interim stay on the operation of G.O.Rt.No. 1411 Dt 26.06.2019 and G.O.Rt.No. 344 Dt 21.02.2020
- State Government went to Supreme Court here.
76. Kidnaps of Public by Police – Multiple Habeas Corpus Petitions
There are multiple habeas corpus petitions filed in the High Court of Andhra Pradesh which alarmed the High Court and it wanted to check on the aspect of ‘breakdown of Constitutional machinery” under Article 356 of Constitution.
- Case 1 : Reddi Govinda Rao Vs State of AP and Ors here.
- Supreme Court stayed the Order of AP High Court here.
- Case 2 : Rayidi Naga Lakshmi and Anr Vs State of AP and Ors here.
77. Sale of Government lands in the name of Mission Build AP
A PIL was filed to stay the same of government lands in a namesake scam called as Mission Build AP here.
78. Decision of State Election Commissioner to conduct Panchayat Elections in AP as the Pandemic nCOVID-19 (Coronavirus outbreak) subsided phenomenally in Andhra Pradesh.
- State Government got a stay on the Elections Schedule here from a single-judge bench.
- Division bench set it aside here.
- The cabal, reportedly, went to Supreme Court here and got a facepalm, again.
79. Passing of Privilege Motion in AP Assembly against State Election Commissioner Sri Nimmagadda Ramesh Kumar for his letter/communication to AP Governor seeking action against rabid legislators who attacked SEC.
- Some Legislators got loose motions on the action being taken by SEC and vomit in press meets. SEC brought it to the notice of Governor via a Letter. This letter leaked to press. The Rabids got butt-hurt and moved a Privilege motion in Assembly (emailed it to Speaker). They seem to be depending on a Bombay High Court verdict in Nandlal case here.
80. SEC passed Order House Arresting an Advisor to Govt and prohibition on speaking with Media
- One of the many advisors was misusing his position to influence the officials working on Election duty so State Election Commissioner took him to task here.
81. Arrest of MP RaghuRama Krishnam Raju
- The Rebel MP of the YSRC Party was arrested on his birthday May 14th and was, as expected, tortured by the AP CID Police; Suo moto contempt proceedings initiated by AP High Court for not following the HC orders, news here.
- Later Supreme Court granted bail to him here.
82. MPTC, ZPTC Elections
- The Notification issued by the pet SEC of the the State Government was set aside a Single Judge Bench here.
83. Harassment to Anandaiah B who prepared and administered Ayurvedic medicine for COVID-related/induced difficulties
- AP High Court provided relief to Mr. Ananadaiah who was being harassed by the Police of AP here.
84. Punishment for headstrong Government Officials under Contempt of Court Act
- On 23 Jun 2021, AP High Court punished two officials (Panchayat Raj Commissioner Girija Shankar and horticulture commissioner Chiranjeevi Chowdary) of Government of AP, news here but later revised it to only fine news here and here.
- On 23 Jul 2021, AP High Court issued NBWs (non-bailable arrest warrants) against two IAS officials (Principal Secretary (Panchayat Raj) Gopala Krishna Dwivedi and BC Welfare department special chief secretary G Anantaramu) who were earlier part of Government of AP, news here.
- On 24 Jul 2021, AP High Court issued NBW to Finance Secretary Satyanarayana along with a fine of Rs.50,000/- but later fined only Rs.10/- and suspended the punishment, news here.
- On 02 Sep 2021, AP High Court punished 5 IAS officers (Manmohan Singh, Seshagiri babu, S S Rawat, Mutyla Raju) for contempt of Court along with fines news here.
85. Looting of natural resources
- On 26 Jul 2021, National Green Tribunal orders issuance of notices to the Looters of bauxite here.
Just a footer… :0)
498A IPC Judgments
Here I will list all judgments both from Supreme Court of India and Various High Courts that may be used in the false cases filed u/s 498A IPC
Once you get hold of your case documents on First date of appearance in Court, see if there are any possible grounds to come out of false cases. This is possible in 2 ways.
- By filing a Discharge Petition u/s 239 CrPC at the Trial Court where this false 498A IPC case is filed.
- By filing a Quash Petition u/s 482 CrPC at the High Court in that State, where this false 498A IPC case is filed.
This page here contains the provisions available under the above provisions along with Judgments.
Supreme Court Judgments
- Girdhar Shankar Tawade Vs State of Maharashtra on 24 Apr 2002
- Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra on 11 Nov 2010
MASTER SITEMAP here.
Defamation Judgments
Here I list the landmark judgments from High Courts of India and Supreme Court of India.
1920-1925
- Gopal Naidu and another Vs King-Emperor on 22 December 1922 (Bombay High Court: the purpose of the codified statute is that on any point specifically dealt with by it the law shall be ascertained by interpreting the language used; the Court is not entitled to invoke the Common Law of England in the matter of defamation)
1926-1930
- Tiruvengada Mudali Vs Tripurasundari Ammal on 15 February 1926 (Madras High Court: the defamatory matter contained in the plaint are accusations in nature and they do not have absolute privilege but only qualified privilege as provided by sec 499 of IPC)
1931-1935
1936-1940
1941-1945
1946-1950
1951-1955
1956-1960
1961-1965
- Thangavelu Chettiar Vs Ponnammal on 1 November, 1965 (Madras High Court: the defamatory matter contained in the plaint was admittedly signed and filed by the petitioner. There can be no doubt that there was publication of the defamatory matter)
1966-1970
- M.C. Verghese Vs T.J. Ponnan and Anr on 13 November 1968 (Supreme Court of India: at common law there had never been a separate principle or rule that communications between a husband and wife during marriage were inadmissible in evidence on the ground of public policy.)
1971-1975
- Balraj Khanna and Ors Vs Moti Ram on 22 Apr 1971 (Supreme Court of India: as far as possible the words spoken or the statements actually made and which he alleges to be defamatory are before the court)
1976-1980
- Surinder Mohan Vikal Vs Ascharaj Lal Chopra on 28 Feb 1978 (defamation has to be filed with in time limitation as per 468 CrPC)
1996-2000
- Mukund Martand Chitnis Vs Madhuri Mukund Chitnis And on 23 April 1991 ()
- Dr. J.Sudarshan Vs R.Sankaran on 16 August, 1991 (Madras High Court: The Civil Court would confine its decision to the trespass, threat of injury and damage by the servants, agents and workmen of the various defendants and the entitlement of token damages by the respondent, while the criminal Court, the passage being per se defamatory, would proceed to find out whether any one of the 10 Exceptions to S. 499, I.P.C. would apply.)
- Shatrughna Prasad Sinha Vs Rajbhau Surajmal Rathi and Ors on 10 September 1996 (SC: Statements made were not defamatory)
2001-2005
2006-2010
- M.K.Prabhakaran and Anr Vs T.E.Gangadharan and Anr on 7 March, 2006 (Kerala HC: ‘Once a statement has been filed in a court of law, that statement can be taken as published and if such a statement amounts to per se defamatory, it is the duty of the accused to establish that they are justified in making such a statement under any of the exceptions to Section 499 I.P.C.‘)
- Japani Sahoo Vs Chandra Sekhar Mohanty on 27 Jul 2007 (SC: Limitation u/s 468 starts from the date of making the complaint and not on the date the cognizance was taken)
- Dayanand Rao Rangadal Vs Suresh and Ors on 14 August, 2008 (Karnataka High Court: “a written statement is a public document” and “a criminal proceeding can be initiated when a civil proceeding is ongoing”)
- Anubhav Gupta Vs State of Rajasthan on 5 October 2009 (At SC, all cases quashed, after settlement)
2011-2015
- Ms.Romy Khanna Vs State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) on 4 Jul 2011 (Defamation was filed after 3 years – Time barred)
- Gambhirsinh R.Dekare Vs Falgunbhai Chimanbhai Patel and Anr on 11 March 2013 (SC held allegation to the effect who authorised printing of defamatory statements is sufficient)
- Mr M Vs Mrs M on 7 February 2014 (Bombay HC: Divorce for husband due to mental cruelty via defamation by knife)
- Priyanka Srivastava and Anr Vs State of UP and Ors on 19 March, 2015 (Procedure for filing non-cognizable cases defined by Dipak Misra)
- Rajdeep Sardesai Vs State Of A.P on 14 May 2015 (SC dismissed Quash against AP HC Order)
- S.R.Sukumar Vs S.Sunaad Raghuram on 2 July 2015 (At SC: Amendment allowed in complaint)
2016-2020
- Subramanian Swamy Vs Union of India on 13 May, 2016 (Supreme Court: IPC 499 and 500 and CrPC 199 are Constitutionally valid)
- Deepak Kumar @ Deepak Saha Vs Hindustan Media Ventrues Ltd and Ors on 06 July 2017 (Delhi HC: No territorial jurisdiction)
- Mahadev I Todale Vs Frankfinn Aviation Services Pvt Ltd and Ors on 10 July 2017 (Delhi HC:)
- E.Krishna and Ors Vs Srinivasa Chary on 17 November 2017 (AP HC: Not defamation)
- X Vs Y on 2 November, 2018 (Bombay HC: Impotent word is Defamatory)
- M.K.Varghese Cor Episcopa Vs State of Kerala on 08 January, 2020 (Kerala High Court: Complaint of defamation cannot be quashed under section 482 CrPC, as it does not have absolute privilege and only qualified privilege)
- Rabindra Nath Pal Vs Ratikanta Paul and Ors on 6 Mar 2020 (Defamation was filed after 3 years – Time barred)
MASTER SITEMAP here.
Domestic Violence Judgments
Here is a list of Judgments under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 and various facets of violence/cruelty within Matrimonial relationships under various Statutes even before this Act. Life Cycle of a Domestic Violence case under PWDV Act 2005 here.
Bare Act (along with Statement of Objects and Reasons) is here and Rules are here. A 2-judge bench of Supreme Court passed guidelines to handle multiple maintenance litigation here.
1971-1980
- Narayan Ganesh Dastane Vs Sucheta Narayan Dastane on 19 March, 1975 [Definition of Mental Cruelty; Burden of Proof; Proof beyond reasonable doubt; Condonation of Cruelty]
1981-1990
1991-2000
- V.Bhagat Vs D.Bhagat on 19 November, 1993 [defined the meaning of Mental Cruelty with respect to Divorce petition]
2001-2005
- MS. Bhaskar Industries Ltd Vs MS. Bhiwani Denim and Apparels Ltd and Ors on 27 August 2001 [SC: Not a DV case but talks about Interlocutory Order]
2006-2010
- Lata Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another on 7 July, 2006 (Right to Marry a person of one’s choice)
- S.R. Batra and Anr Vs Taruna Batra on 15 December, 2006 (Supreme Court defined ‘Shared Household‘)
- Samar Ghosh vs Jaya Ghosh on 26 March, 2007 (Mental Cruelty defined)
- Abhijit Bhikaseth Auti Vs State Of Maharashtra and Anr on 16 September, 2008 [BomHC: Before granting an interim relief under sub-section 1, an opportunity of being heard is required to be granted to the respondent.]
- V.K.Vijayalekshmi Amma Vs Bindu V on 2 Dec 2009 ()
- Krishnamurthy Nookula Vs Savitha Y on 9 December, 2009 [KarHC: Audi Alterum Partem, Magistrate must conduct Inquiry in the nature of summary trial before Interim Maintenance]
- Vijay Verma Vs State NCT of Delhi and Anr on 13 August, 2010 (Delhi High Court)
- Jovita Olga Ignesia Mascarenhase Coutinho Vs Rajan Maria Coutinho and Anr on 24 Aug 2010 (BHC: Frame Issues after Hearing Both Parties)
- Rachna Kathuria Vs Ramesh Kathuria on 30 August, 2010 (DelHC: From my favorite judge but bad judgment; deny maintenance in DVC as there was maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC)
- Sharad Kumar Pandey Vs Mamta Pandey on 1 Sep 2010 [DelHC: Definition of Residence for Jurisdiction purpose]
- Hemlataben Maheshbhai Chauhan Vs State of Gujarat on 21 October, 2010 [GujHC: Since wife was already getting maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC, Court denied interim maintenance in DVC]
2011-2015
- Sandhya Manoj Wankhade Vs Manoj Bhimrao Wankhade and Ors on 31 January 2011 (Women can also be made respondents)
- Dhaval Rajendrabhai Soni Vs Bhavini Dhavalbhai Soni and Ors on 04 Feb 2011 [GHC: Custody cannot be given to non-custodial parents under DV Act; Only visitation permissible to non-custodial parent]
- Inderjit Singh Grewal Vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 23 August, 2011 (1 year limitation of 468 CrPC applies to DV Cases)
- V.D. Bhanot Vs Savita Bhanot on 07 February 2012 (DV Conduct of parties prior to PWDV Act are to be considered; Mental Cruelty)
- Buravilli Siva Madhuri Vs Sri Buravilli Satya Venkata Lakshmana Rao and Ors on 25 September, 2012 (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
- Deoki Panjhiyara Vs Shashi Bhushan Narayan Azad and Anr on 12 Dec 2012 [SC: Unless there is a declaration of nullity/void of the marriage by a competent Court or authority, a aggrieved person can take advantage of benefits under DV Act.]
- Ashish Dixit and Ors Vs State of U.P. and Anr on 7 January, 2013 (Quashing of false DVC on relatives of husband)
- Mewa Singh and others Vs Sukhjeet Kaur on 29 April 2013 (PHHC: appearance of respondents disposed off)
- Markapuram Siva Rao & Others Vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 30 April, 2013 (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
- Indra Sarma vs V.K.V.Sarma on 26 November, 2013 (SC: No relationship in the nature of marriage, no DV can apply, No maintenance)
- Kolli Babi Sarojini And Others Vs Kolli Jayalaxmi And Another on 29 April, 2014 (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
- Koushik Vs. Sau. Sangeeta Koushik Gharami & ors on 05 May 2014 [BomHC: No DV, No Reliefs; not even for children]
- Ayishabi Vs Shahul Hameed on 16 July, 2014 (KerHC: Dispose within 3 months)
- Santosh Sashkant Dhonde Vs Sarika Santosh Dhonde and Ors on 11 September, 2014 [BomHC: Hearing before Interim Orders]
- Chandra Sukanya Devi Vs Chandra Srinivasulu on 18 November, 2014 (JMFC Court, Ongole, Andhra Pradesh)
- A.K. Srinivasa Rao and 3 Ors Vs State of AP on 19 January, 2015 (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
- P.Sugunamma And Others Vs State Of A.P. on 19 January, 2015 (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
- Giduthuri Kesari Kumar And Others Vs State of Telangana on 16 February 2015 (APHC: 2 grounds for quashing a DV Case, No shared household, any other case dismissed on same allegations; overruled by SC in Prabha Tyagi here)
- Boddu Anjali and Anr Vs Boddu Annapoornamma and Ors on 17 June, 2015 [Ongole JCJC:]
- Gaddameedi Nagamani Vs The State Of Telangana on 17 July, 2015 (APHC: If any application is filed under Rule 37 of Criminal Rules of Practice or under Section 126(2) or Section 205 to represent through special vakalat or through advocate or for one to represent others as the case may be, the learned Magistrate shall entertain, hear and pass appropriate orders granting the same with necessary conditions)
- Rajkishore Shukla Vs Asha Shukla on 22 September, 2015 (Madhya Pradesh High Court)
- Krishna Bhatacharjee vs Sarathi Choudhury And Anr on 20 November, 2015 (Dipak Misra says, Judicially separated folks are also within the ambit of Aggrieved person)
2016-2020
- Kunapareddy @ Nookala Shanka Balaji Vs Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari On 18 April, 2016 (Court can allow amendments to complaint/petition, before cognizance of same is taken by Court)
- Prakash Nagardas Dubal-Shaha Vs Meena Prakash Dubal Shah and Ors on 22 April 2016 (Unsuccessful divorce proceedings cannot adversely affect the maintainability of DVC)
- Monojit Banerjee Vs Shalini Banerjee on 3 October, 2016 [KarHC: Hold an inquiry and then recorded finding as to grant interim relief or not]
- Hiral P Harsora and Ors Vs Kusum Narottamdas Harsora and Ors on October 6, 2016 [Supreme Court strikes down words ‘adult male‘ from the definition of Respondent u/s 2(q) and also the proviso to sec 2(q)]
- Dinesh Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P and Anr on 27 Oct 2016 [AllHC: A Revision under Section 397/401 of Cr P C against a judgment and order passed by the Court of Sessions under
Section 29 of the Act, 2005 is maintainable] - Yadlapalli Mary Mani Vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 21 December, 2016 (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
- Girish Kumar Suneja Vs CBI on 13 Jul 2017 [SC: Not a DV case but talks about final, intermediate and Interlocutory Orders]
- Manmohan Attavar Vs Neelam Manmohan Attavar on 14 July, 2017 (SC: ‘Domestic Relationship’ Necessary To Permit A Party To Occupy ‘Shared Household’)
- Kuppusamy Vs Radhika on 21 July, 2017 (MadHC: Dispose DVC in 2 months)
- Santineer Vincent Rajkumar Vs R.Rejitha on 3 August, 2017 (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
- Jallarapu Laxman Rao Vs Jallarapu Pedda Venkateswarlu on 1 November, 2017 (AP HC: No Revision u/s 397/401 CrPC, as Sec 29 PWDV Act provides Revision/Appeal)
- Sushila Devi Vs Vikas Kumar Singhal And Ors on 9 Feb 2018 (RajHC: Dispose within 2 months)
- S Vs J on 17 Apr 2018 (DHC: Frame issues after hearing both parties)
- Ashmin Kashmiri Vs Pushkar Kashmiri on 04 Jul 2018 (HPHC: No DV, No Reliefs; not even for children)
- Sabina Sahdev and Ors Vs Vidur Sahdev on 9 Jul 2018 [DHC: no pre-condition can be laid before receiving Appeal/Revision such as deposit maintenance amount]
- Lalita Toppo Vs State of Jharkhand on 30 October 2018 (Live-in partner can also file DV case)
- Shalu Ojha and Prashant Ojha case (File income affidavit as Prescribed in Kusum Sharma)
- Sangita Saha Vs Abhijit Saha and Ors on 28 January, 2019 (SC: No DV, No Reliefs)
- Upheld Abhijit Saha and Ors Vs Sangita Saha on 17 September, 2015 (CalHC: No DV, No Reliefs)
- Ajay Kumar Vs Lata @ Sharuti on 08 April 2019 (BIL pays interim maintenance)
- Tillottama Kumari Vs State of Bihar and Ors on 16 May 2019 (PatHC: Dispose DVC in 6 weeks)
- Kamlesh Devi Vs Jaipal and Ors on 04 Oct 2019 (SC: No allegations of domestic violence; No shared household)
- NS Leelavathi Vs R Shilpa Brunda on 11 December, 2019 (Karnataka High Court)
- Prakash Vinayak Gaikwad and Ors Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr on 13 Feb 2020 [BomHC: No Shared household, so no domestic relationship so no DVC maintainable on family members]
- N.Prasad Vs Harithalakshmi on 20 Jul 2020 (1 year limitation of 468 CrPC applies to DV Cases)
- Latha.P.C and Ors Vs State of Kerala and Ors on 15 Sep 2020 (482 CrPC against DVC is not maintainable; Magistrate u/s 28(2) can apply judicial mind of Preliminary objections)
- Satish Chander Ahuja Vs Sneha Ahuja on 15 Oct 2020 (SC: Overruled SR Batra judgment regd Shared Household concept; but also emphasized on the alternate accommodation)
- S.Vanitha Vs Deputy Commissioner on 15 Dec 2020 ()
2021-2025
- Dr.P.Pathmanathan and Ors Vs V.Monica and Anr on 18 Jan 2021 ()
- Masood Khan Vs. Millie Hazarika on 04 Mar 2021 (482 CrPC against DVC is maintainable as per Satish Chander)
- Maya and Ors Vs State of U.P. and Ors on 19 Mar 2021 (AllHC: Dispose DVC in 2 months)
- Puttaraju Vs Shivakumari on 01 Apr 2021 (MHC: Time limitation applies only for offence u/s 31 but not for the application u/s 12 of PWDV Act 2005)
- Robarto Nieddu Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr on 20 Nov 2021 (RajHC: non-citizen women residing in India temporarily also are classified as ‘aggrieved person’)
- Suyalaly and Anr Vs Alphin Jeyasingh and Ors on 29 Nov 2021 (MadHC: Dispose within 2 months)
- Ravneet Kaur Vs Prithpal Singh Dhingra on 24 Feb 2022 (DHC: Daughter-in-law can be evicted but an alternate accommodation must be provided)
- Nahida Rishad Cooper Vs Ali Daruwala and Ors on 25 Feb 2022 (BHC: Relatives who have no shared house-holding can also be respondents as per proviso to Sec 2(q))
- Ali Hamid Daruwala Vs Nahida Rishad Cooper and Anr on 28 Feb 2023 (BHC: Relying on Prabha Tyagi, BHC held that no shared householding requirement is necessary)
- Vani Santhosh Babu Vs Vijaya Laxmi Vani on 3 Mar 2022 (TelHC: Dispose in 60 days)
- Kamatchi Vs Lakshmi Narayanan on 13 Apr 2022 [SC: Limitation does not apply to Sec 12 applications under PWDV Act]
- Bharti Anand Vs Sushant Anand and Ors on 26 Apr 2022 [DelHC: Mere fleeting or casual visits/living, without permanency, at different places shall not make it a shared household]
- Prabha Tyagi Vs Kamlesh Devi on 12 May 2022 (SC: DIR is not mandatory; No shared holding required)
- Rajamma H Vs Thimmaiah V on 09 Jun 2022 (KarHC: Dispose DVC within 2 weeks)
- Mrugesh Wasnik Vs Shweta Mrugesh on 22 Jun 2022 (BomHC: Dispose DVC within 3 months)
- P Parvathi Vs Pathloth Mangamma on 7 Jul 2022 (TelHC: Directions issued regd appearance of respondents)
- Naresh Kumar Yalla Vs State of Telangana on 21 Jul 2022 (TelHC: Dispose DVC in 1 month)
- Altaf Ahmad Zargar and Anr Vs Sana Alias Ruksana and Anr on 02 Sep 2022 (JKHC: After WS, Magistrate may dismiss the DVC and cancel any interim orders passed)
- Ragimani Gangadhar Vs Ragimani Padmavathi and Anr on 08 Sep 2022 (APHC: Disclose previous maintenance cases)
- Sandeep Pamarati Vs State of AP and Anr on 29 Sep 2022 (APHC: My Own case: Disposal of DVC in 60 days)
- Afia Rasheed Khan Vs Mazharuddin Ali Khan and Anr on 10 Oct 2022 (SC: Upheld BHC Judgment stating casual visits/stays do not qualify as temporary stay/residence)
- S Anandanatesan Vs P Hemalatha on 23 Nov 2022 [MadHC: No DV, No Reliefs]
- Rajesh and Anr Vs Station House Officer and Ors on 05 Dec 2022 [KerHC: the existence of a domestic relationship between the complainant and the respondent is the sine qua non for seeking relief under the DV Act]
- Sunil Kumar and Ors Vs Elizabeth on 07 Feb 2023 [KarHC: Rental amount in lieu of accommodation in shared household can be given]
- Bhawna Vs Bhay Ram and Ors on 17 Feb 2023 [SC: No costs can be imposed on DV complainant for not proceeding with trial]
- Bhanu Kiran Vs Rahul Khosla and Ors on 28 Feb 2023 (PHHC: Interim Orders passed by Magistrate are appealable. Sessions Court can pass Interim Orders)
- Abhishek Agarwala and Anr Vs Smti Komal Poddar on 01 Mar 2023 (MegHC: Don’t insist on appearance of Respondents on each and every adjournment)
- Murlidhar Vs Sangita on 09 Mar 2023 [BomHC: No DV, No Reliefs]
- Kavitha M Vs Raghu on 16 Mar 2023 [KarHC: No need to conduct Inquiry in the nature of summary trial before passing Interim reliefs; Over rules Krishnamurthy Nookula Vs Savitha Y on 9 December, 2009]
- Sumeet Vs Himani Sumeet Ninave Nee on 29 Mar 2023 [BomHC: DV allegedly committed outside India can also be tried by Indian Courts]
- Sharnavva @Kasturi Vs Shivappa on 18 Apr 2023 [KarHC: No Strict proof of marriage required; No validity of marriage to be checked]
- Jaspal Kaur alias Pinki and Ors Vs State of Punjab and Anr on 24 Apr 2023 [Relies on Kunapareddy, Kamatchi, ]
- Sanjeev Kumar and Ors Vs Sushma Devi on 01 Jun 2023 [HimHC: Frame Issues after Hearing Both Parties]
- Rangesh Srinivasan Vs Madhulika Bawa on 07 Jun 2023 [DelHC: Stay on Interim Maintenance Order without any pre-condition; relied on Sabina Sahdev and Ors Vs Vidur Sahdev on 9 Jul 2018]
- Shilpashree J.M. Vs Gurumanjunatha .A.S. on 19 Jun 2023 [KarHC: No maintenance to idle sitting wife]
- Mummireddygari Prathap Reddy and Ors Vs Mummireddygari Srivani and Ors on 17 Jul 2023 [APHC: No Shared household, so no domestic relationship so no DVC maintainable on family members]
- Dhananjay Mohan Zombade Vs Prachi Dhananjay Zombade on 18 Jul 2023 [BomHC: No Shared household, so no domestic relationship so no DVC maintainable]
- Ashwini Pradhan Vs UOI and Anr on 08 Aug 2023 [MPHC: Sections 21 and 31 of PWDV Act are not unconstitutional]
- M.R.Somasundaram and Ors Vs B Rahini and Anr on 12 Dec 2023 [MadHC: Approach the Magistrate Court itself and raise the issue of maintainability and other preliminary issues]
- Mohammed Yasin Naikwadi Vs Aneesa and Anr on 13 Dec 2023 [KarHC: A protection order under DV Act does not include the order of granting monetary relief of maintenance under Section 20 of the D.V. Act]
- Kinjal Jayesh Mehta Vs Disha Jimit Sanghvi and Anr on 14 Feb 2024 [BomHC: Mere casual visits of the Petitioner to the shared household being devoid of any permanency is not sufficient and adequate to constitute residence in shared household]
- Kiran Jyot Maini Vs Anish Pramod Patel on 15 Jul 2024 [Interim Maintenance granted]
- Palaparthi Shebha and Anr Vs State of AP and Anr on 16 Jul 2024 [APHC: Interim maintenance order is made effective from the date of petition and not from date of Order]
- Shikha Lall Vs Prince Agarwal on 7 Nov 2024 [DelHC: Never resided in New Delhi so no jurisdiction under DV Act]
- Krishnawati Devi and 6 Ors Vs State of UP and Anr on 22 Jan 2025 [AllHC: No Shared household, so no domestic relationship so no DVC maintainable on family members; Verify shared household condition satisfied or not before issuing notices; Dispose within 60 days]
- Kalavakuru Srinivas Kumar Reddy Vs Kalavakuru @ Revuru Sujatha and Ors on 05 Feb 2025 [APHC: Follow Rajnesh Vs Neha]
- Geddam Jhansi and Anr Vs State of Telangana and Anr on 07 Feb 2025 [SC: DVC proceedings quash for same allegations under Article 142 of Constitution]
- Vishal Shah Vs Monalisha Gupta and Ors on 20 Feb 2025 [SC: there is no requirement for the personal presence/appearance of any party in the proceedings under the DV Act, because they are quasi-criminal in nature and do not entail any penal consequences]
- Srinivasa D Vs Asha on 20 Mar 2025 [Landmark judgment to rectify baseless Orders of maintenance by Family Court judges in Karnataka]
- Abhijit Ankush Shelke and Ors Vs Shubhangi Abhijit Shelke and Anr on 09 May 2025 [SC: Voice sample may be compelled as per Sec 28(2) of PWDV Act and Article 20(3) will not apply]
- Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi Vs Vidhi Rawal on 19 May 2025 [SC: High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash proceedings of an application under Section 12(1) or orders passed in accordance with Sections 18 to 23 of the DV Act, 2005]
2026-2030
- Deepak Gangadhar Dadge Vs Vijaya and Anr on 17 Jan 2026 [BHC: No suo moto perjury proceedings initiated]
- Mariya Zafar and Anr Vs State of UP and Anr on 31 Mar 2026
- Rani Bibi Vs Sk Nurullah and Ors on 8 Dec 2025 [CalHC : A wife can file a DV Act case from her temporary residence]
- Dinesh kumar Vs Neeti and Ors on 4 Apr 2026
- Pranjal Poddar and Ors Vs Shivani Gupta on 21 Apr 2026 [AllHC: DVC Quashed against relatives other than husband]
- Ravi S Vs Sahana Devi A and Ors on 18 Jun 2026 [KarHC: Interim Maintenance to wife set aside as she is having more income than husband]
MASTER SITEMAP here.
