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 Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification

Sanjay Bhardwaj and Ors Vs The State and Anr on 27 August 2010

Posted on June 14, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Justice Dhingra held as follows

From Para 4,

4. A perusal of Domestic Violence Act shows that Domestic Violence Act does not create any additional right in favour of wife regarding maintenance. It only enables the Magistrate to pass a maintenance order as per the rights available under existing laws. While, the Act specifies the duties and functions of protection officer, police officer, service providers, magistrate, medical facility providers and duties of Government, the Act is silent about the duties of husband or the duties of wife. Thus, maintenance can be fixed by the Court under Domestic Violence Act only as per prevalent law regarding providing of maintenance by husband to the wife. Under prevalent laws i.e. Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act, Hindu Marriage Act, Section 125 Cr.P.C – a husband is supposed to maintain his un-earning spouse out of the income which he earns. No law provides that a husband has to maintain a wife, living separately from him, irrespective of the fact whether he earns or not. Court cannot tell the husband that he should beg, borrow or steal but give maintenance to the wife, more so when the husband and wife are almost equally qualified and almost equally capable of earning and both of them claimed to be gainfully employed before marriage. If the husband was BSc. and Masters in Marketing Management from Pondicherry University, the wife was MA (English) & MBA. If the husband was working as a Manager abroad, the wife with MBA degree was also working in an MNC in India. Under these circumstances, fixing of maintenance by the Court without there being even a prima facie proof of the husband being employed in India and with clear proof of the fact that the passport of the husband was seized, he was not permitted to leave country, (the bail was given with a condition that he shall keep visiting Investigating Officer as and when called) is contrary to law and not warranted under provisions of Domestic Violence Act.

From Para 5,

5. We are living in an era of equality of sexes. The Constitution provides equal treatment to be given irrespective of sex, caste and creed. An unemployed husband, who is holding an MBA degree, cannot be treated differently to an unemployed wife, who is also holding an MBA degree. Since both are on equal footing one cannot be asked to maintain other unless one is employed and other is not employed. As far as dependency on parents is concerned, I consider that once a person is grown up, educated he cannot be asked to beg and borrow from the parents and maintain wife. The parents had done their duty of educating them and now they cannot be burdened to maintain husband and wife as both are grown up and must take care of themselves.

From Para 6,

6. It must be remembered that there is no legal presumption that behind every failed marriage there is either dowry demand or domestic violence. Marriages do fail for various other reasons. The difficulty is that real causes of failure of marriage are rarely admitted in Courts. Truth and honesty is becoming a rare commodity, in marriages and in averments made before the Courts.

Sanjay Bhardwaj and Ors Vs The State and Anr on 27 August 2010

Citations: [2010 DRJ 118 385], [2010 DLT 171 644], [2010 RCR CRI 7 1287], [2010 AD DEL 7 615], [2011 CIVCC 1 209], [2010 DMC 2 574], [2010 SCC ONLINE DEL 2912], [2011 ILR DEL 1 58],

Other Source links: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56090d69e4b0149711179b26

Posted in High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Justice Shiv Narayan Dhingra PWDV Act Sec 23 - Interim Maintenance Order Set Aside Sanjay Bhardwaj and Ors Vs The State and Anr | 2 Comments

Pooja Saxena vs State and Anr on 20 October 2010

Posted on June 14, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Read through the Para 11 of this Delhi High Judgment to learn how NOT to draw conclusions from thin air u/s 482 CrPC proceedings.

11. The above observation of this Court obviously is an obiter and does not constitute a binding precedent for the reason that the provisions of the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 were not the subject-matter of the dispute before the court in the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. in Neera Singh’s case. Moreover, in the aforesaid judgment, the Court has not taken into account the protection given to a victim of offence of dowry demand as provided under Section 7(3) of the Dowry Prohibition Act 1961. Thus, in my view the above referred judgment is of no avail to respondent No.2. Further, on perusal of FIR No.232/2009, it transpires that as per the allegations in the complaint made by the petitioner, the demand for dowry was made by the father of respondent No.2 at the time of engagement ceremony of the petitioner when he allegedly asked the father of the petitioner to concede to his demand for dowry, failing which he would call off the marriage. From the aforesaid facts, it is obvious that the petitioner and her parents were confronted with the unenviable situation either to concede to the demand or face the loss of honour of their family in the society, and if under that fear, the petitioner and her parents conceded to the demand for dowry, they cannot be faulted as they were victims of the circumstances. Given the aforesaid facts, Section 7(3) comes to the rescue of the petitioner and in terms of the aforesaid provision, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for the offence under Section 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

Crux of the failed justice: Clearly from the highlighted portion of the judgment itself, one can understand the conclusion arrived by the Judge is based on the unproved allegations in the complaint which got carried as-is to the FIR. This also goes to show that the Judge has pre-judged that the allegations were true despite the fact that said allegation of demand for dowry is to be punished under Section 4 of DP Act 1961 and this being a Criminal Statute required such allegations to be proven in a Criminal Court trial with evidence. This was given a total bypass possibly in an successful attempt of harmonious interpretation but alas totally contrary to the legislature intent which being that Dowry givers are to be punished. Despite writing that Sec 7(3) gives protection only to the aggrieved person (who made the complaint) her parents are also extended protection from prosecution, which is squarely ultravires to provision, statute and legislature intent and most importantly to Principles of natural justice. Precluding the criminal who allegedly committed the crime of giving dowry even before such fact is proved in a Court trial is travesty of justice.

 

Pooja Saxena vs State and Anr on 20 October 2010

Citations: [2011 CRIMES 1 378], [2010 JCC 4 2780], [2011 AD DEL 1 359], [2010 SCC ONLINE DEL 3652]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/61656909/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56090d12e4b0149711178c8d


Further story here.


Index of DP Judgments is here.

Posted in High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Baseless or Convoluted Judgment DP Act 3(1) - Giving Taking or Abet to Give or Take is Crime DP Act 7(3) - Protection for Aggrieved Person from Prosecution Misinterpretation of Earlier Judgment or Settle Principle of Law or Per Incuriam PIL - Dowry Givers should be Prosecuted PIL - Effective Solution to Reduce False Dowry Cases Pooja Saxena vs State and Anr | Leave a comment

Y N Gupta (Deceased) Thr LR Vs MS M A Ramzana on 24 December 2019

Posted on February 26, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Basing on Landmark judgment here from Supreme Court, Delhi High Court has held that, it is impermissible for the Court to repeatedly adjourn cases for orders after arguments are heard.

Y N Gupta (Deceased) Thr LR Vs MS M A Ramzana on 24 December 2019

Citations: [

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/176452660/

 

Posted in High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Anil Rai Vs State of Bihar Delay in Passing Orders or Judgments After Reserving the Same Y N Gupta (Deceased) Thr LR Vs MS M A Ramzana | Leave a comment

Padmawati and Ors Vs Harijan Sewak Sangh and Ors on 06 November 2008

Posted on January 18, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

My favorite Judge, Shri Shiv Narayan Dhingra ji had delivered this gem of an order.

9. Before parting with this case, I consider it necessary to pen down that one of the reasons for overflowing of Court dockets is the frivolous litigation in which the Courts are engaged by the litigants and which is dragged as long as possible. Even if these litigants ultimately loose the lis, they become the real victors and have the last laugh. This class of people who perpetuate illegal acts by obtaining stays and injunctions from the Courts must be made to pay the sufferer not only the entire illegal gains made by them as costs to the person deprived of his right and also must be burdened with exemplary costs. Faith of people in judiciary can only be sustained if the persons on the right side of the law do not feel that even if they keep fighting for justice in the Court and ultimately win, they would turn out to be a fool since winning a case after 20 or 30 years would make wrong-doer as real gainer, who had reaped the benefits for all those years. Thus, it becomes the duty of the Courts to see that such wrong-doers are discouraged at every step and even if they succeed in prolonging the litigation due to their money power, ultimately they must suffer the costs of all these years long litigation. Despite settled legal positions, the obvious wrong-doers, use one after another tier of judicial review mechanism as a gamble, knowing fully well that dice is always loaded in their favour, since even if they lose, the time gained is the real gain. This situation must be redeemed by the Courts.

Padmawati and Ors Vs Harijan Sewak Sangh and Ors on 06 November 2008

Citations: [154 (2008) DLT 411],

Other Source links: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56e66a48607dba6b53436039


The appeal filed at Supreme Court is available here.

Posted in High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Justice Shiv Narayan Dhingra Legal Terrorism Padmawati and Ors Vs Harijan Sewak Sangh and Ors Perjury - Forged Evidence or False Statements on Oath or False Affidavit Submitted Perjury Under Section 340 CrPC

Kaveri Vs Neel Sagar and Anr on 25 October, 2010

Posted on December 30, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

Shri Shiv Narayan Dhingra ji again comes to the rescue of a mother and a brother from the false case laid by cunning sister, who didn’t claim that she is unable to maintain herself.

Kaveri Vs Neel Sagar and Anr on 25 October, 2010

Citations:

Indiankanoon.org or Casemine link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/141414000/


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

Posted in High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Able To Maintain Herself Inability to Maintain Self Not Testified Justice Shiv Narayan Dhingra Kaveri Vs Neel Sagar and Anr

Vijay Verma Vs State NCT of Delhi and Anr on 13 August, 2010

Posted on December 17, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

The US-Resident Dumbo filed DV Case to grab up her father’s property that he had made into the name of his grandson. Shri Shiv Narayan Dhingra ji of Delhi High Court has delivered this judgment wherein the false claim of a woman was crushed due to lack of Shared Household criteria by showing her, her right place and dismissed this Appeal.

Vijay Verma Vs State NCT of Delhi and Anr on 13 August, 2010

Citations: [2010 (118) DRJ 707], [MANU/DE/1946/2010], [2010(7) RCR(Criminal) 1145]

Indiankanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/176922704/


Index of all Domestic Violence Cases is here.

Posted in High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Justice Shiv Narayan Dhingra No Shared Household PWDV Act - Misuse For Property Vijay Verma Vs State NCT of Delhi and Anr

Sameer Garg and Anr Vs State and Anr on 25 September, 2019

Posted on October 13, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

Honorable Delhi High Court held that, “if any of the allegations are found to be patently false, the trial court shall take necessary steps to prosecute the concerned complainant to the full extent of law”

Sameer Garg and Anr Vs State and Anr on 25 September, 2019

Citations:

Indiankanoon.org link:


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 Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Judgment Sameer Garg and Anr Vs State and Anr Work-In-Progress Article

Ajay Singh Vs UOI and Ors on 27 August, 2019

Posted on August 31, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

In this order from Delhi High Court, it is held that the principle of “rounding off” has been recognised in law in a number of decisions to do substantial justice to folks who got border line marks less than the minimum marks set for the qualifying examination.

Ajay Singh Vs UOI and Ors on 27 August, 2019

News: https://barandbench.com/delhi-hc-permits-rounding-off-petitioners-marks-in-ll-b-to-enable-him-to-apply-for-jag/


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 Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Ajay Singh Vs UOI and Ors Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to Landmark Case

Kusum Sharma Vs Mahinder Kumar Sharma on 3 July, 2019

Posted on August 29, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

Applicants (who?) prayed for speedy disposal of maintenance applications pending at lower family court.

8 FAO 369-1996 Expeditious disposal of maintenance applications on 3 July, 2019

The Case Index is available here.


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 Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Kusum Sharma Vs Mahinder Kumar Sharma

The Kusum Sharma Vs Mahinder Kumar Sharma case

Posted on August 29, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

Here are the key orders passed by Hon’ble Delhi High Court on the case of Kusum Sharma Vs Mahinder Kumar Sharma case.

  1. On 14 January 2015, Hon’ble Delhi High Court has prescribed the format for the affidavit that all parties of matrimonial cases have to file, so that the disposal can happen in 60 days as mandated by the Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 here.
  2. The appellant Kusum Sharma has expired on 26th September, 2016 here.
  3. On 29 May, 2017, based on inputs and suggestions from some Family courts, further modifications are made to the prescribed format of the affidavit that all parties of matrimonial cases should file. On 6 December, 2017, based on inputs and suggestions from some Family courts, further modifications are made to the prescribed format of the affidavit that all parties of matrimonial cases should file. See a consolidated update here.
  4. On 3 July 2019, expeditious disposal of maintenance applications at the Family court is sough in DHC here.
  5. On 06 August 2020, Delhi High Court again revised the Affidavit template to capture the assets and liabilities details here.
  6. On 21 May 2021, Delhi High Court closed the proceedings in this case, vide the following order.
Kusum Sharma Vs Mahinder Kumar Sharma on 21 May 2021

This judgment is gainfully used in Shalu Ojha case here.


A 2-judge bench of Supreme Court passed guidelines to handle multiple maintenance litigation here.

Posted in High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Kusum Sharma Vs Mahinder Kumar Sharma Multiple Maintenances Orders Shalu Ojha Vs Prashant Ojha Work-In-Progress Article

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 (2,046 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 (1,698 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 486 access attempts in the last 7 days.

pixel