Prakash Babulal Dangi Vs The State of Maharashtra on 10 October, 2017

Posted on December 12, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This is one of the persons trying to figure out why in India, menfolks are allowed to be looted not in just one law but on a myraid of laws.

From Para 11,

“In view thereof, with these clarifications that both the orders; the one passed under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act and another passed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., are required to be complied, both these Writ Petitions stand disposed off.“

Prakash has filed a SLP with Hon’ble Supreme Court here that got disposed off due to settlement.

Prakash Babulal Dangi Vs The State of Maharashtra on 10 October, 2017

Gautam Jairam Gawai Vs Ragini Gautam Gawai & Anr on 20 January, 2017

Posted on December 8, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

In this judgment from Nagpur bench of Bombay High Court, Hon’ble sent the case of cunning knife packed out, as it was not established that the knife could not only show existence of live-in-relationship with the non-applicant which is akin to a marriage visible from the fact that applicant and non-applicant are living together as husband and wife but also should show that they are otherwise legally qualified to marry.

This knife was cunning enough to engage in extra-marital affair, as the earlier marriage was not legally terminated and on top of it, tried level-best to fasten paternity of children from first marriage on to paramour, who was married to another woman and had 3 children with her.

Gautam Jairam Gawai Vs Ragini Gautam Gawai & Anr on 20 January, 2017

[related_posts_by_tax title=”5 Recently Updated Posts, Similar or Related To Above Post” orderby=”post_modified” posts_per_page=”5″ show_date=”true”]

Mamta Gautam Wankhede Vs Gautam Sukhdev Wankhede on 2 February, 2018

Posted on December 7, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

In this wonderful judgment from Hon’ble High Court of Bombay, the Hon’ble Justice has rubbed in it the lower court magistrate without any tolerance. See the rotten mindsets of magistrates of lower courts.

From Para 8,

The learned Magistrate has gone on record saying that filing of divorce petition by the respondent against the petitioner after 23 years of marriage itself amounted to domestic violence. The remark is outlandish and, if I may say so, is alien to the known jurisprudential concepts. If this is the way how the applications filed under Section 12 of the D.V. Act are decided, as has been done in the present case by the learned Magistrate, as rightly submitted by the learned Counsel for the respondents, all the provisions of law, be they be from Hindu Code Bill or Family Courts Act or D.V.Act, creating rights and obligations of parties while maintaining a fine balance between the competing interests of both sides, would be rendered nugatory and a party would dither to initiate a proceeding for assertion of his right, for the fear of being labelled as merchant of domestic violence. The learned Magistrate shall do well to avoid making such remarks without giving any thought to rights and obligations of parties under the law.

Mamta Gautam Wankhede Vs Gautam Sukhdev Wankhede on 2 February, 2018

This judgment also relies on another Bombay High Court judgment from 2014, available here.

Sidhappa Satappa Savali Vs Smt. Mahananda Sidhappa Savali on 08 December, 2015

Posted on November 30, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This is a judgment from Bombay High Court wherein it was held that, as 125 CrPC proceedings are Summary in nature, no need of strict proof required for marriage between parties.

Sidhappa Satappa Savali Vs Smt. Mahananda Sidhappa Savali on 08 December, 2015

Rahul Raj Singh Vs The State of Maharashtra (pratyusha banerjee)

Posted on November 7, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This is the case of Film and TV personalities wherein the woman committed suicide and her live-in partner was accused for the same. Read through the below series of orders in this case wherein Anticipatory Bail is granted to the accused person by Hon’ble High Court of Bombay.

Anticipatory Bail Application filed by accused under 438 CrPC; Interim AB granted

Rahul Raj Singh Vs The State of Maharashtra on 12 April, 2016

Next Date; Special PP is assigned to the case; Hence adjourned

Rahul Raj Singh Vs The State of Maharashtra on 18 April, 2016

Mommy of deceased woman files transfer of case to CBI application; Dismissed as pre-mature

Soma Shankar Banerjee Vs The State Of Maharashtra And Ors on 21 April, 2016

AB is confirmed

Rahul Raj Singh Vs The State of Maharashtra on 25 April, 2016

Snapshop of the case at Lower Court

Some news snippets around the parties in above case.

https://www.firstpost.com/entertainment/pratyusha-banerjee-case-sc-turns-down-plea-opposing-anticipatory-bail-for-rahul-raj-singh-2805850.html

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/tv/news/hindi/late-pratyusha-bannerjees-boyfriend-rahul-raj-singh-to-tie-the-knot-with-girlfriend-saloni-sharma/articleshow/64395955.cms

https://www.timesnownews.com/entertainment/news/bollywood-news/article/late-pratyusha-banerjees-ex-boyfriend-rahul-singh-accuses-screenwriter-mushtaq-shiekh-of-sexual-harassment/301897 (#MeToo Jhalak)

[related_posts_by_tax title=”5 Recently Updated Posts, Similar or Related To Above Post” orderby=”post_modified” posts_per_page=”5″ show_date=”true”]

Shital Krushna Dhake Vs Krushna Dagdu Dhake on 06 Oct 2018

Posted on October 29, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

The cunning knife who is begging maintenance under HMA 24, cannot travel 125 KMs to attend Court and requires the assistance of an adult member of the family to travel, petitioned for Transfer of cases to her den location.

Just for some ‘utensils, Bed and Rukhwat items’ she denied to settle the matter even when the hubby dear is willing to dole out, an amount of Rs.10.50 lac as a One Time Comprehensive Settlement and part ways with the Applicant/ wife before it became more painful.

From Para 8 and 9,

At this juncture, the learned Advocate for the husband submits that though it was beyond his means, he has somehow accumulated Rs.10.50 lac so as to resolve this entire issue once and for all and part ways. If the wife wants to agitate on the utensils and Rukhwat, the husband is withdrawing his offer of depositing Rs.10.50 lac in this Court.

I see reason in the submissions of the learned Advocate for the husband and therefore, the offer that the Respondent/ Husband had made earlier, is permitted to be withdrawn and the amount of Rs.10.50 lac need not be deposited in this Court.

TRIVIA

The name of the knife is a little… Shit’al… LOL

Shital Dhake Vs Krushna Dhake on 06 October, 2018

Shital Krushna Dhake Vs Krushna Dagdu Dhake on 02 Feb 2018

Posted on October 29, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

High Court of Bombay (Aurangabad Bench) has held that, there is no harm if such a print out from the official website is placed before this Court.

From Para 2 and 3,

2. I am of the view that this apprehension is misplaced since the print out of the orders of this Court from the official website has sanctity and the trial Courts are expected to consider the said orders, if they are cited after taking a print out from the official website. The said orders are also available before the trial Court from the official website and there can be a counter verification to find out whether such an order is actually uploaded to the official website or not. In this backdrop, there is no harm if such a print out from the official website is placed before this Court.
3. It is informed by the learned Advocates that, in several cases before various trial Courts, the learned Judges insist on production of the certified copy of the order and they are not inclined to consider the print out of an order from the official website of the Bombay High Court, as being a reliable document. As observed in the foregoing paragraphs, in the event of any doubt in the mind of the learned Judge, it can be checked from the official website of the Bombay High Court as to whether such an order has been uploaded or not? Once the order is uploaded on the official website, it is a reliable document to be considered by the Court before whom it is cited.
4. Since several lawyers in the Court room have addressed this Court on this common issue, the learned Registrar (Judicial) of this Court is directed to circulate this order to all the learned Principal District Judges of the District Courts in Maharashtra, so as to bring this aspect to the notice of all the learned Judges working in the judicial districts in this state.

Shital Dhake Vs Krushna Dhake on 02 February, 2018

Citations:

Indiankanoon.org or Casemine link:

Added to this Index here.

Sarla Prabhakar Waghmare Vs State of Maharashtra And Others on 10 April 1989

Posted on September 26, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Hon’ble High Court of Bombay has held that, it is not every harassment or every type of cruelty that would attract Section 498-A.

From Para 3,

After going through her evidence it does not appear that she has conclusively established that the beating and harassment was with a view to force her to commit suicide or to fulfil the illegal demands of the non-applicants. The trial Court has discussed this aspect at some length and has recorded a finding that offence under Section 498-A, Indian Penal Code, is not established. I do not see any reason to interfere with the same in my revisional jurisdiction at the instance of the complainant, particularly when the State has not challenged the impugned order.

Sarla Prabhakar Waghmare Vs State Of Maharashtra And Others on 10 April, 1989

SBI Cards and Payments Services Pvt Ltd Vs Rohidas Jadhav on 11 June, 2018

Posted on September 18, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Summons are served via Whatsapp and same is marked and taken as valid serving of summons by hon’ble High Court of Bombay.

SBI Cards and Payments Services Pvt Ltd Vs Rohidas Jadhav on 11 June, 2018

Mr M Vs Mrs M on 7 February 2014

Posted on August 25, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

In this very good divorce judgment from Hon’ble High Court of Bombay, it is held that the knife caused metal cruelty on husband and his parents for the following reason,

the Appellant established that the Respondent could not substantiate the allegations of cruelty in the criminal case. Even the allegations of cruelty made by the Respondent in the written statement in the present case could not be established by her;
The Appellant and his family members were required to attend Criminal Court on 56 different dates from the year 2001 to 2004. Considering the manner in which the criminal case proceeded, the Appellant and his family members were subjected to humiliation, trauma and agony as set out in the deposition of the Appellant;
The Respondent made a very serious defamatory allegation against the Appellant, both in the written statement and in her evidence, that due to ill treatment by the Appellant, she started suffering from arthritis. The Respondent made no efforts to substantiate the said allegation. Thus, the Respondent made unfounded defamatory allegation against the Appellant;
Not only that the Respondent did not substantiate the said allegation, even the cause of death of her father was not brought on record. Even this allegation is an unfounded defamatory allegation;

Mr M Vs Mrs M on 7 February, 2014

Citations:

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Category: High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification

Prakash Babulal Dangi Vs The State of Maharashtra on 10 October, 2017

Gautam Jairam Gawai Vs Ragini Gautam Gawai & Anr on 20 January, 2017

Mamta Gautam Wankhede Vs Gautam Sukhdev Wankhede on 2 February, 2018

Sidhappa Satappa Savali Vs Smt. Mahananda Sidhappa Savali on 08 December, 2015

Rahul Raj Singh Vs The State of Maharashtra (pratyusha banerjee)

Shital Krushna Dhake Vs Krushna Dagdu Dhake on 06 Oct 2018

Shital Krushna Dhake Vs Krushna Dagdu Dhake on 02 Feb 2018

Sarla Prabhakar Waghmare Vs State of Maharashtra And Others on 10 April 1989

SBI Cards and Payments Services Pvt Ltd Vs Rohidas Jadhav on 11 June, 2018

Mr M Vs Mrs M on 7 February 2014