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 Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification

Arun Kashinath Deshpande Vs Smt.Inumati Ramchandra Deo on 8 April, 2010

Posted on June 18, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This is a Judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court. Permanent alimony given to Knife is cancelled as the perjury case against her was proved true.

 

Arun Kashinath Deshpande Vs Smt.Inumati Ramchandra Deo on 8 April, 2010

Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in

Posted in High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Arun Kashinath Deshpande Vs Smt.Inumati Ramchandra Deo CrPC 340 read with CrPC 195 HM Act 25 – Permanent Alimony Cancelled Perjury - Approached Court with Unclean Hands Perjury Under Section 340 CrPC | Leave a comment

Union Of India And Ors Vs Haresh Virumal Milani on 26 April, 2018

Posted on June 10, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

A recent judgment from Hon’ble Bombay High Court also (like this one here) declared that application under section 340 has to be dealt with first before proceeding to main petition/case.

 

I am a little skeptical about this judgment as it refers to section 340 of Civil Procedure Code, not once but in almost every paragraph of the order.

 

Union Of India And Ors vs Haresh Virumal Milani on 26 April, 2018

 

This judgment is corrected in June 2018. It is available here.

Posted in High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged CrPC 340 - Dispose Perjury first Perjury Under Section 340 CrPC Union Of India And Ors Vs Haresh Virumal Milani | Leave a comment

Capt. Percy Meher Master Vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. on 4 October, 2017

Posted on June 3, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Bombay High Court has concluded that the petitioner’s discharge petition deserves allowance as none of the allegations made under various sections in the case does not hold good to continue the proceedings.

Capt. Percy Meher Master Vs The State Of Maharashtra, Thr. on 4 October, 2017

 

Posted in High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Capt. Percy Meher Master Vs The State Of Maharashtra CrPC 227 - Discharged CrPC 239 - Discharged | Leave a comment

Kenneth Desa and another Vs Gopal on 11 July 2007

Posted on June 1, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Wonderful judgment from Bombay High Court setting aside judgments of 2 lower courts in regards to the maintainability of application under Section 340 of CrPC.

From Para 7,

Whenever an application under Section 340 of Code of Criminal Procedure is filed, the Civil Manual Chapter XIX para 337 requires that it should be registered as Miscellaneous Judicial Case i.e. a case where a Judicial Enquiry is contemplated. The learned Civil Judge should have, therefore, directed the application to be registered as Miscellaneous Judicial Case.

Kenneth Desa and another Vs Gopal on 11 July 2007
Posted in High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged CrPC 340 read with CrPC 195 Kenneth Desa Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Maintainability Perjury Under Section 340 CrPC | Leave a comment

Prakash Kumar Singhee Vs Amrapali Singhee on 4 May 2018

Posted on May 31, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Good order from Hon’ble Bombay High Court in regards to granting maintenance to a knife under section 20 of PWDV Act, who did not even aver in the compliant that there was any domestic violence at all which would not make her a ‘Aggrieved Person’.

The maintenance of Rs.2 lakhs per month granted by Family court is set aside by the high court and an interim maintenance of Rs.25,000/- was issued from date of order till the Family Court decides the matter.

 

Few highlights from Judgment given below.

 

She would submit that the application is devoid of such pleadings attributing domestic violence and thus in absence of domestic violence being attributed and demonstrated, an application under Section 12 cannot be entertained and no relief can be granted under Section 20 of the said Act in the nature of the monetary relief.

 

The Family Court has also perused the bank statement of the wife and has recorded that there are various deposits to her account and the Court has found the explanation offered by the wife that her mother is carrying out the business of stock broking from her account to be evasive.

 

During the pendency of the proceedings before the Family Court on its remand, the petitioner-husband would pay an amount of Rs.25,000/-per month to the wife towards her maintenance, till the Family Court decides the mater.

 

Prakash Kumar Singhee Vs Amrapali Singhee on 4 May 2018

Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in

Posted in High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Prakash Kumar Singhee Vs Amrapali Singhee PWDV Act Sec 20 - Maintenance Reduced Sandeep Pamarati Unexplained Money Inflow Into Destitute Woman Bank Account | Leave a comment

Jayantilal Kanji Nagda Vs State of Maharashtra and anr. on 8 May, 2015

Posted on May 26, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This is a Bombay High Court judgment clarifying that when there is no domestic relationship, no domestic violence can happen.

 

Jayantilal Kanji Nagda Vs State of Maharashtra and anr. on 8 May, 2015
Posted in High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Jayantilal Kanji Nagda Vs State of Maharashtra and anr No Domestic Relationship Exists PWDV Act Sec 20 - Maintenance Denied Sandeep Pamarati | Leave a comment

Sanjay Sudhakar Bhosale Vs Khristina on 8 April, 2008

Posted on May 26, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Another judgment this time from Bombay High Court, which says no cruelty proved in maintenance case under section 125 CrPC results in no maintenance to Knife.

This sentence in last para is not appreciable though.

However, the payment of maintenance allowance, if any, during the intervening period, is not refundable by her.

Note: This is how the false case filers are encouraged/supported by Judiciary in India.

Sanjay Sudhakar Bhosale Vs Khristina on 8 April, 2008

 

Posted in High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision CrPC 125 or BNSS 144 - Cruelty Not Proved CrPC 125 or BNSS 144 - Maintenance Denied Maintenance Sanjay Sudhakar Bhosale Vs Khristina | Leave a comment

Koushik Vs. Sau. Sangeeta Koushik Gharami and ors on 05 May 2014

Posted on May 21, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Simple principle is wonderfully upheld by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in this judgment.

‘No domestic violence’ means ‘No reliefs under Domestic Violence Act’. Period.

Not even for Children

Especially, it was held that

9. It is thus, clear that the monetary relief is available for the children of the aggrieved person if the monetary relief is required to meet the expenses incurred by the aggrieved person as a result of domestic violence. The monetary relief is also permissible in case losses are suffered by the aggrieved person as a result of the domestic violence. The monetary relief is available to children of the aggrieved person under Section 20 of the Act. However, the aggrieved person is under obligation to establish that she had to meet the expenses incurred and losses suffered due to domestic violence on the part of the respondent. In the present case, since the learned Magistrate has come to a conclusion that the domestic violence could not be proved and since that finding of the learned Magistrate has not been challenged by the aggrieved person, it follows that no relief could have been given to respondent Nos.2 and 3 also.

From Para 10,

10. In my considered opinion, the learned Magistrate had committed an error in granting monetary relief to respondent Nos.2 and 3 despite the fact that domestic violence could not be established. Though it is possible to say that the maintenance was permissible for respondent Nos.2 and 3 (minor children) under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the monetary reliefs could not have been given to them under Section 20 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The view taken by the learned Magistrate and the appellate Court, in my opinion, is not correct.

Moreover, Judge ordered refund of the money deposited by the husband with the Court.

iii. The amount of Rs.Twenty Five Thousand, deposited by the petitioner in this Court shall be refunded to him immediately.

Koushik Vs. Sau. Sangeeta Koushik Gharami & ors on 05 May 2014

Citation: 2014 All MR(Cri) 2398

Other Sources:


The Index of PWDV Act cases here.

Posted in High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Domestic Violence Not Proved Koushik Vs. Sau. Sangeeta Koushik Gharami No Evidence for Domestic Violence No Reliefs PWDV Act - Refund of Maintenance | 2 Comments

Chandra Kanjappa Kuchchikurwe Vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr. on 14 December, 2012

Posted on May 19, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Wonderful point:

Since the offences, with which the applicant is charged, are bailable, the anticipatory bail application is not maintainable

Read Paras 5-10

Even though Section 324 IPC is made non-bailable via Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act of 2005, (Act No.25 of 2005), but it was NOT appointed into force, by a notification in the Official Gazette by Central Government.

Chandra Kanjappa Vs State Of Maharashtra & Anr. on 14 December, 2012
Posted in High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Chandra Kanjappa Kuchchikurwe Vs State Of Maharashtra and Anr CrPC Sec 438 - Anticipatory Bail Not Maintainable | Leave a comment

Prashant Pandurang Hingane And Vs Manisha Prashant Hingane on 20 December, 2017

Posted on May 19, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Relatives residing separately are set free from the proceedings of Domestic violence case by Hon’ble Bombay High Court.

 

Prashant Pandurang Hingane And Vs Manisha Prashant Hingane on 20 December, 2017
Posted in High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Absurd Or After Thought Or Baseless Or False Or General Or Inherently Improbable Or Improved Or UnSpecific Or Omnibus Or Vague Allegations No Shared Household Prashant Pandurang Hingane And Vs Manisha Prashant Hingane PWDV Act - DV Case Quashed | Leave a comment

Post navigation

  • Older posts
  • Newer 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
yashtdp_ Yash @yashtdp_ ·
1 Aug

📢 DSC అవాస్తవాలు & తప్పుడు ప్రచారాలపై వాస్తవాలు! 🛑
DSC పరీక్షలపై ఎక్కడైనా పేపర్ లీక్ అయిందా అంటే కేవలం అనుమానాలే తప్ప ఒక్క ఆధారం కూడా లేదు! హైకోర్టులో వేసిన కేసులు కూడా సరైన ఆధారాలు లేకపోవడంతో మొదటి రోజే డిస్మిస్ అయ్యాయి. ⚖️
@YSRCParty తప్పుడు ప్రచారాలతో పబ్బం గడుపుకోవాలని

Reply on Twitter 2083413535686869412 Retweet on Twitter 2083413535686869412 66 Like on Twitter 2083413535686869412 247 X 2083413535686869412
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
ncbn N Chandrababu Naidu @ncbn ·
2 Aug

సీనియర్ జర్నలిస్ట్, మహా న్యూస్ ఛైర్మన్ & మేనేజింగ్ డైరెక్టర్ శ్రీ మారెళ్ళ వంశీ కృష్ణ గారికి హృదయపూర్వక జన్మదిన శుభాకాంక్షలు. మీడియా రంగంలో మీ నిబద్ధతతో మరెన్నో విజయాలు సాధించాలని, భగవంతుడు మీకు ఆయురారోగ్యాలు, సుఖసంతోషాలను ప్రసాదించాలని మనస్ఫూర్తిగా ఆకాంక్షిస్తున్నాను. మహా

Reply on Twitter 2083758360680415554 Retweet on Twitter 2083758360680415554 182 Like on Twitter 2083758360680415554 2398 X 2083758360680415554
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
delhipolice Delhi Police @delhipolice ·
26 Jul

⚠️ FACT CHECK: FAKE VIDEO ⚠️The viral video claiming Delhi Police DCP Sumit Jha resigned over student protests is completely fake and AI generated. The authentic footage, in which the officer addresses the public regarding active misinformation campaigns, is available vide link

Reply on Twitter 2081352316767396053 Retweet on Twitter 2081352316767396053 598 Like on Twitter 2081352316767396053 2295 X 2081352316767396053
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
itdp_official iTDP Official @itdp_official ·
31 Jul

Zero Airports..

Zero Vision..

Zero @ysjagan..

The numbers speak louder than the slogans.

#YSRCPNeverAgain #UttarandhraKalalakuRekkalu
#BhogapuramAirport

Reply on Twitter 2083105701380198733 Retweet on Twitter 2083105701380198733 102 Like on Twitter 2083105701380198733 380 X 2083105701380198733
Load More

Recent Posts

  • Ishwar Chand Sharma and Ors Vs State of U.P. on 29 May 2026 July 26, 2026
  • Prabhakar Yeshwant Masram and Anr Vs Sou Tula Namdeorao Jaipurkar and Anr on 21 Jul 2026 July 26, 2026
  • Shikha Lall Vs Prince Agarwal on 7 Nov 2024 July 21, 2026
  • Pranjal Poddar and Ors Vs Shivani Gupta on 21 Apr 2026 July 21, 2026
  • Sharad Kumar Pandey Vs Mamta Pandey on 1 Sep 2010 July 21, 2026

Most Read Posts

  • Reply to Section 41A CrPC Notice – Format with Legal Explanation (5,144 views)
  • Charge Sheet and Final Report Explained (3,164 views)
  • Regular Bail Application Format (Section 437/439 CrPC) (2,542 views)
  • Arrest Procedure in 498A cases after Arnesh Kumar (2,144 views)
  • Discharge Application Format in 498A Case – Draft, Procedure & Sample Template (2,080 views)
  • Can You Travel Abroad After an FIR Is Registered? – Legal Position Explained (2,047 views)
  • Life Cycle of a Perjury Case (2,024 views)
  • Application for Certified Copy of FIR – Format, Procedure and Sample Draft (1,767 views)
  • Appeal, Revision and Review Explained (1,736 views)
  • Life Cycle Stages of a Restitution of Conjugal Rights Case (1,699 views)

Tags

Reportable Judgement or Order (439)2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision (424)Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes (387)Landmark Case (384)1-Judge Bench Decision (370)Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to (298)Work-In-Progress Article (215)3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision (101)Sandeep Pamarati (91)Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty (80)Issued or Recommended Guidelines or Directions or Protocols to be followed (71)Perjury Under Section 340 CrPC (70)Absurd Or After Thought Or Baseless Or False Or General Or Inherently Improbable Or Improved Or UnSpecific Or Omnibus Or Vague Allegations (62)Reprimands or Setbacks to YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh (49)Summary Post (47)CrPC 482 - Quash (44)CrPC 125 or BNSS 144 - Order for Maintenance of Wives Children and Parents (43)HM Act Sec 13 - Divorce Granted to Husband (42)Abuse Or Misuse of Process of Court (42)Divorce Granted on Cruelty ground (42)

Categories

Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification (760)Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments (329)High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (187)High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification (167)High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification (112)High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification (95)Legal Procedure (83)High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification (71)High Court of Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification (63)LLB Study Material (59)General Study Material (56)High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification (53)Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications (51)High Court of Kerala Judgment or Order or Notification (47)Judicial Activism (for Public Benefit) (47)Prakasam DV Cases (46)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 Telangana Judgment or Order or Notification (28)

Recent Comments

  • vinod gupta on Reply to Section 41A CrPC Notice – Format with Legal Explanation
  • 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)

Archives of SoK

  • July 2026 (19)
  • June 2026 (19)
  • 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

  • EWR (Newark) on 2026-09-02 September 2, 2026
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Sep 2, 05:00 - 09:00 UTC Jul 21, 15:30 UTC Scheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in EWR (Newark) datacenter on 2026-09-02 between 05:00 and 09:00 UTC.Traffic might be re-routed from this location, hence there is a possibility of a slight increase in latency during this maintenance window […]
    Cloudflare

RSS List of Spam Server IPs from Project Honeypot

  • 103.89.15.35 | SD August 2, 2026
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 207 | First: 2019-03-02 | Last: 2026-08-02
Owned and Operated by Advocate Sandeep Pamarati and Advocate Suprajaa Rajan
Proudly powered by WordPress
Theme: Flint by Star Verte LLC

Bad Behavior has blocked 483 access attempts in the last 7 days.

pixel