[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: High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification
Sanjeev Kumar Aggarwal and Ors Vs State and Anr on 12 October, 2007
Hon’ble Delhi High Court had quashed the FIR on parents and relatives in a false case of 498A, 406 IPC.
Citations: [2007 (4) JCC 3074]
Other Source links:
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56ea93be607dba371ebcab91
Kusum Lata Sharma Vs State and Anr on 2 September, 2011
This is the landmark judgment from Delhi High Court which held that “A mother who is being maltreated and harassed by her son would be an “aggrieved person”. If the said harassment is caused through the female relative of the son i.e. his wife, the said female relative will fall within the ambit of the “respondent‟. This phenomenon of the daughters-in-law harassing their mothers-in-law especially who are dependent is not uncommon in the Indian society.”
From Paras 9 and 10,
9. As a matter of fact, para ‘4(i)’ clarifies that even those women who are sisters, widows, mothers, single woman or living with the abuser are entitled to legal protection under the proposed legislation. A mother who is being maltreated and harassed by her son would be an “aggrieved person”. If the said harassment is caused through the female relative of the son i.e. his wife, the said female relative will fall within the ambit of the ‘respondent’. This phenomenon of the daughters-in-law harassing their mothers-in-law especially who are dependent is not uncommon in the Indian society.
10. In view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, para ‘4’ of the Statement of Objects and Reasons cannot be stated to have excluded a female relative of the male partner or a respondent and thus, a mother-in-law being an “aggrieved person” can file a complaint against the daughter-in-law as a respondent.
Citations : [2011 DMC 3 1], [2011 CRIMES 4 548], [2011 DLT 181 775], [2011 DRJ 126 298], [2011 ILR SUPP DELHI 4 435], [2012 RCR CRIMINAL 1 924], [2011 SCC ONLINE DEL 3710], [2011 AIC 106 846], [2011 AD DELHI 6 576]
Other Sources :
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1272794/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56090db1e4b014971117a40b
Poonam Vs V.P.Sharma on 25 February, 2014
In this judgment, Delhi High Court held that “the provisions under the D.V.Act can be invoked only when the domestic relationship is in existence. Where the domestic relationship ceased, the provisions under the D.V.Act cannot be invoked, basis this judgment here.”
Contention is from Para 11,
The contention of the petitioner has been that when she can move the jurisdiction of the court under Section 125 Cr.P.C., nothing prevents her from invoking the jurisdiction of the court under D.V.Act. It s further contended that the expression used under Section 2 (f) ‘at any point of time lived together’ also includes a divorced wife.
Harbans Lal Malik Vs Payal Malik on 29 July, 2010
This is the Delhi High Court judgment from Shri. Shiv Narayan Dhingra, affirming that in a DV case, respondent can be other family member other than husband and are liable for relief mentioned under Monetary Relief u/s 20 of PWDV Act.
Punch Statement:
The girl and the parents of the girl knew it very well that they had selected a person for marriage with whom the girl was going to live abroad and the matrimonial home and the shared household was going to be outside India. This act of marrying a person settled abroad is a voluntary act of the girl. If she had not intended to enjoy the fat salary which boys working abroad get and the material facilities available abroad, she could have refused to marry him and settled for a boy having moderate salary within India. After having chosen a person living abroad, putting the responsibility, after failure of marriage, on the shoulders on his parents and making them criminals in the eyes of law because matrimonial ties between the two could not last for long, does not sound either legally correct or morally correct. How can the parents of a boy who is working abroad, living abroad, an adult, free to take his own decisions, be arrayed as criminals or respondents if the marriage between him and his wife failed due to any reason whatsoever after few years of marriage. If the sin committed by such parents of boy is that they facilitated the marriage, then this sin is equally committed by parents of the girl. If such marriage fails then parents of both bride and groom would have to share equal responsibility. The responsibility of parents of the groom cannot be more. Shelter of Indian culture and joint family cannot be taken to book only relatives of boy. A woman’s shared household in India in such cases is also her parents’ house where she lived before marriage and not her in-laws’ house where she did not live after marriage.
Another one here:
I am surprised that the Courts below did not give weight to the judgment of New Jersey where parties lived for 7 ½ years but assumed jurisdiction under Domestic Violence Act because of the pure temporary residence (as pleaded by her) of wife in Delhi who is otherwise resident of Hissar. The Court of ASJ wanted that the order of the Court of MM should be honoured by the US while the Court here would not honour a decree of Court of USA where the husband and wife lived for 7 ½ years.
Kapil Kumar Beri Vs The State Of Delhi (N.C.T. Of Delhi) on 19 December, 2018
In this judgment from Hon’ble Delhi High Court, it was held that the prosecution could not prove the offence of incest laid on the father.
Per Para 26,
While it is true that the evidence of the prosecutrix deserves to be given weight and in certain circumstances can be acted upon without any corroboration, in cases of incest, there is always a need for greater and more acute scrutiny, inasmuch as such allegations against persons related by blood (own biological father, for example) smack of bestial instinct and total absence of basic human values and discretion. It is sad to note that the trial Judge blindly accepted the prosecution story without going into the aspects which render it highly improbable, virtually impossible. The erroneous approach of the trial court has led to serious miscarriage of justice in the present case unreasonably holding the biological father of raping his own daughter in the teeth of loaded circumstances showing her to be of wayward ways and possibly in liaison with a male acquaintance.
Dharambir Khattar Vs UOI on 21 November, 2012
Based on the Hon’ble Apex Court’s landmark judgment here, Hon’ble Delhi High Court also ruled that “Therefore, without going into the issue of whether there was non-compliance of the provisions of Section 5(2) or of Rule 419-A, it is clear that even if there was, in fact, no compliance, the evidence gathered thereupon would still be admissible. This is the clear position settled by the Supreme Court and, therefore, no further question of law arises on this aspect of the matter.“.
[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”]
Rachna Kathuria Vs Ramesh Kathuria on 30 August, 2010
In this judgment from Hon’ble Delhi High Court, it was held that “If a woman living separate from her husband had already filed a suit claiming maintenance and after adjudication maintenance has been determined by a competent court either in Civil Suit or by Court of MM in an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. she does not have a right to claim additional maintenance under the Act. The Court of MM under the Act has power to grant maintenance and monetary reliefs on an interim basis in a fast track manner only in those cases where woman has not exercised her right of claiming maintenance either under Civil Court or under Section 125 Cr.P.C.”
Why PWDV Act?
Also held “It must be understood that the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 does not create any additional right to claim maintenance on the part of the aggrieved person. It only puts the enforcement of existing right of maintenance available to an aggrieved person on fast track.”
Index to DV Judgments is here.
Tanushree & Ors Vs A.S.Moorthy on 7 February, 2018
Based on this judgment here, it was held that both proceedings of maintenance under 125 CrPC and PWDV Act can run parallelly and are maintainable.
