Interesting case. Lot of twists and turns. At the end, the lying knife gets empty bowl.
[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”]
Category: Chittor DV Cases
K.Pooja Sri Vs D.Babu on 13 June, 2017
Territorial jurisdiction is adjudicated in this order.
[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”]
R.Jyothi Vs K.Chandra Babu on 03 November, 2017
Read a nice story in this case.
No reliefs from other respondents as none were requested in the petition.
There is no relief order against respondents 2 to 5 as the petitioner did not asked any relief from respondents 2 to 5.
[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”]
T.V.Vyshnavi Vs N.Govindaraj on 12 January, 2017
A new story to be heard in this ex parte order. Protection, Maintenance and Compensation orders are granted.
[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”]
T.Sujatha Vs P.Mahendra on 21 September, 2017
The order reads like this in this Dismissed for Default DVC.
Conditions not complied, though petitioner availing sufficient time not proceed with case. Hence DVC is dismissed for default.
A.Sandhya Vs P.Rajesh on 8 December, 2017
A new story in this DVC. Read it.
M.Rekha Vs K.Siva Kumar on 11 August, 2017
A withdrawn DVC here.
M.Jayalakshmi Vs D.Madhumoorthy on 19 July, 2017
Dismissed DVC for default. Batta not paid. Haha
Balijineni Devika Vs Rayapaneni Motheesh on 8 April, 2017
A compromise order from a Lok Adalat.
[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”]
N.Sumithra Vs R.K.Govinda Rajulu on 30 October, 2017
Another ex parte order in DV case.
A key observation by Magistrate
The Petitioner has also sought for compensation Rs.10,00,000/- from the 1st Respondent. But she did not specify as to on what counts she had sought such compensation. In these circumstances, the mere averment in the Petition is not sufficient to grant compensation to the Petitioner, since the tie between the Petitioner/ Aggrieved Person is sacred the marital tie and it cannot be equated with any business relation wherein the damages or compensation will be paid for breach.
[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”]
