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: District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification

State of Maharashtra Vs Abdulrehman Shahjadhussain Shaikh and Anr on 28 Mar 2022

Posted on March 31 by ShadesOfKnife

A Special Court dealing with POCSO cases, held as follows and acquitted a father who is accused of raping his daughter.

From Para 7,

7. Settled position of law that sole testimony of the victim alone if found reliable is sufficient to convict the accused.

From Para 13,

It is also settled position that the child can be easily tutored.

State of Maharashtra Vs Abdulrehman Shahjadhussain Shaikh and Anr on 28 Mar 2022
Posted in District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision POCSO Act Sec 3 - Penetrative Sexual Assault POCSO Act Sec 4 - Punishment for Penetrative Sexual Assault State of Maharashtra Vs Abdulrehman Shahjadhussain Shaikh and Anr | Leave a comment

Sonika Vs Vikas on 06 Jan 2022

Posted on February 23 by ShadesOfKnife

A Court in Delhi says that Interim maintenance has to be given to a woman who continues to reside in her matrimonial home.

From Paras 3 and 4,

3. After perusing the complaint u/s. 12 of Prevention of Woman from Domestic Violence Act (PWDV Act), the reply thereto and the documents filed, the learned trial Court passed the Impugned Order holding that the appellant is not entitled to any interim maintenance. Aggrieved of this order, the appellant has now approached this Court praying that she is indeed entitled to interim maintenance from her husband and therefore the impugned order must be set aside. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent has argued that the impugned order has been correctly passed and is a well reasoned one, which should not be interfered with.
4. The relevant portion of the impugned order is reproduced below :-
“In the opinion of this Court, there is no ground to grant interim maintenance to the complainant at this stage. This is so because admittedly the children are in joint custody and are being taken care of by respondent no. 1 in the matrimonial home. Moreover, since the complainant is residing in the matrimonial home, it is difficult to believe that no expenses are being paid by respondent no. 1 for her sustenance. Thus, there is no ground to grant interim maintenance to the complainant. It is also pertinent to note that the complainant is well qualified and holds an MBA and B.Ed. Degree and also a diploma in Art and Craft and hence, in a position to earn a living for herself.
In view of the reasons mentioned in the aforesaid paragraphs, the application for interim maintenance stands dismissed.”
This Court is unable to agree with the above said findings and the reasoning behind it as given in the impugned order. Thus, for reasons discussed in detail below in the paragraphs that follow, the impugned order is set aside.

Now the verbal vomit begins…

From Para 5,

5. The trial Court has basically denied any interim maintenance to the appellant herein on the ground that since she is residing in the matrimonial house, it is difficult to believe that no expenses are being paid for her sustenance. Admittedly, the husband and the wife were residing in the same household at the time of passing of the Impugned Order. However, the trial Court was wrong in coming to the conclusion that merely because the aggrieved person before it was residing in her matrimonial house, she is not entitled to any maintenance. The appellant has made specific allegations of domestic violence in her complaint u/s. 12 of the PWDV Act before the trial Court. In fact an FIR has also been registered upon allegations of cruelty as made by the complainant wife to the concerned police authorities. The Domestic Incident Report (DIR) filed by the protection officer also corroborates the complaint of the appellant. As is usually the case, such instances of domestic violence as are narrated by the appellant before the trial Court, in her complaint, took place within the four walls of house and in support of her grievance, the complainant can only rely on the averments made in her complaint and cannot place much material on record to substantiate her averment at the initial stage. However, in view of this court, considering the detailed allegations as made in the complaint U/s 12 of the PWDV Act, there is sufficient material to give rise to at least a prima facie assumption that the appellant was treated with domestic violence.

From Paras 9, 10 and 11,

9. Also the trial Court did not apply the correct legal position and reasoning while holding that since the appellant is an M.A., B.Ed., so she is also capable of earning a decent salary and taking care of her own financial needs. Thus, she is not entitled to any maintenance. It is a settled law that the capacity to earn is totally different from the actual earnings. A middle aged woman, a mother of 3, who has accused her husband and in laws of threatening her with domestic violence, can not be denied maintenance on the ground that many years ago she had procured a B.A. and B.Ed. Degree. The complainant has specifically alleged in her complaint u/s. 12 of PWDV Act that despite her degree, she was not allowed to work by her husband and in laws ever since her marriage. The respondent husband never placed on record any material before the trial Court to show any earning of his wife since the date of marriage. He has not mentioned anywhere in his reply to the complainant u/s. 12 of PWDV Act or in his income affidavit what amount was ever earned by the complainant after marriage, who her employer was and for how many days she had so worked? If, indeed the wife had ever earned a decent amount for herself, the husband should have at least mentioned some details of the said earning and employment but the respondent is silent on this aspect. This only grants more credibility to the version of complainant that she has never worked after her marriage. Indeed the couple has three minor children aged around 11 (eleven) years, 09 (nine) years and 7 (seven) years. Thus, as is usually a practice in many Indian households, an educated woman despite her qualification may not be allowed to join any regular employment to take care of her young children born in quick succession and to attend to the needs of her husband and family.
10. Considering the admitted income of the respondent husband in the present case, while the appellant cannot be found entitled to any lavish life style, however, this does not mean that she is not entitled to even a single penny as her maintenance. Thus, considering the admitted income of the respondent husband, which is around Rs. 1,400/- (Rupees one thousand four hundred only) per working day (which amounts to around Rs. 32,000/- (Rupees thirty two thousand only) per month, the appellant is found entitled to an interim maintenance amount of Rs. 5,000/- (Five thousand only) per month towards her daily expenses of food, medicines, toiletries and such like needs. This amount has been arrived at after taking into account the fact that the respondent husband is also maintaining his three school going children and the complainant does not require any amount towards her residential needs as the appellant is residing in her matrimonial house as was admitted by the counsel for the appellant before the trial court on 26.03.2021.
11. The respondent no. 1 is hereby directed to pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) as interim maintenance to the appellant till the disposal of the complaint u/s. 12 of PWDV Act before the trial Court. This amount is to be paid from the date of filing of the complaint before the trial Court. Arrears be cleared within twelve months. A long time is given for clearing the arrears considering the salary of the respondent and his legal obligation towards maintaining his three children also.

Sonika Vs Vikas on 06 Jan 2022
Posted in District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged PWDV Act Sec 23 - Interim Maintenance Granted Sonika Vs Vikas | Leave a comment

State of Maharashtra Vs Ahamed Aasif Fakih on 18 Mar 2021

Posted on April 4, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

In this case before District Sessions Judge Thane, the accused-Advocate is prosecuted for offence of assaulting his own wife with intention to kill her and possessing firearm.

State of Maharashtra Vs Ahamed Aasif Fakih on 18 March 2021
Posted in District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Advocate Antics State of Maharashtra Vs Ahamed Aasif Fakih | Leave a comment

Varun Priolkar Vs President Noorami Masjid and 3 Ors on 11 Mar 2021

Posted on March 24, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

Additional District Magistrate at Ponda-Goa passed Orders that, loudspeakers may not be used without prior permission. Further a maximum noise level limit was prescribed.

Varun Priolkar Vs President Noorami Masjid and 3 Ors on 11 Mar 2021
Posted in District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Noise Pollution (Regulation and Control) Rules 2000 Noise Pollution due to LoudSpeakers Varun Priolkar Vs President Noorami Masjid and 3 Ors | Leave a comment

State of Maharashtra Vs Azad Ramji Mishra on 22 Dec 2016

Posted on March 18, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

 

State of Maharashtra Vs Azad Ramji Mishra on 22 Dec 2016
Posted in District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged False Incest Or Rape Or Sexual Or Sexual Harassment Allegations Perjury Under 340 CrPC State of Maharashtra Vs Azad Ramji Mishra Work-In-Progress Article | Leave a comment

Adv Mehmood Pracha Office searched

Posted on January 15, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

Interesting aspects learnt (for a newbie like me)!!!

Adv Mehmood Pracha Office searched_compressed
Posted in District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Adv Mehmood Pracha Office searched CrPC 156(3) - Any Magistrate Empowered u/s 190 May Order Such an Investigation as above-mentioned CrPC 165 - Search by police officer CrPC 93 - When search-warrant may be issued | Leave a comment

Kusum and Anr Vs Sandeep Kumar and Ors on 04 Oct 2019

Posted on January 1, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

A false DV case is dismissed on merits.

Kusum and Anr Vs Sandeep Kumar and Ors on 04 Oct 2019

Here are the written arguments:

Kusum and Anr Vs Sandeep Kumar and Ors Written Arguments
Posted in District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Kusum and Anr Vs Sandeep Kumar and Ors PWDV Act - Dismissed On Merits | Leave a comment

Manish Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors on 24 Dec 2020

Posted on December 30, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

A JMFC has ordered for complaint of perjury in this Judgment. Nice one…

From Para 10, 11 and 12,

10. I have accepted B summary report filed by I.O., in Crime No., 08/2020 registered at Wai police station. On that basis, in present inquiry, I come to the conclusion that informant of said crime has given false FIR at Wai police station as well false statement on oath under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code in Court of Justice. Therefore, it appears to me that the informant being legally bound by an oath or by an express provision of law to state the truth, but she has given false FIR as well as false statement under Section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure in the Court. The informant has given statement on oath under Section 164 of Code of Criminal Procedure in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Wai, inspite of knowledge that the FIR lodged by her is false. Informant has lodged false FIR with intent to cause injury to the present applicant and to Bhisham Parwani, knowing that no just or lawful ground for further proceeding on the basis of that false FIR.
11. Therefore, I record my finding that Criminal Prosecution is required to be initiated against the respondent No. 2 of this application who is informant of Crime No. 08/2020 registered at Wai police station for the offences punishable under Section 193, 194, 199, 200 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code as per Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. She has prima facie committed aforesaid offences in relation to B summary proceeding before this Court. It is necessary to make mention here that there is no cogent and convincing material to proceed against respondents No. 3 to 6 for the offences mentioned above.
12. Considering all above grounds, a complaint is required to be filed against the present respondent No. 2 for the offences punishable under Section 193, 194, 199, 200 and 211 of the Indian Penal Code as per Section 195(1)(b)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As per Section 195(1)(b)(i) of Code of Criminal Procedure, it is required to authorise officer of this Court to file a written complaint on behalf of this Court against respondent No. 2 in this Court.

Manish Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors on 24 Dec 2020

Earlier proceedings here.

Posted in District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged CrPC 164 - Recording of Confessions and Statements Manish Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors Perjury - Forged Evidence or False Statements on Oath or False Affidavit Submitted Perjury Under 340 CrPC | Leave a comment

State of Telangana Vs Bodusu Naresh Yadav and Ors on 17 Dec 2019

Posted on December 12, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Posting this Conviction judgment only for awareness of the visitors to this site, on the focal point that, how a baseless judgment looks like. Just 24 Pages. Judgment begins around Para 18.

Enjoy !!!

State of Telangana Vs Bodusu Naresh Yadav and Ors on 17 Dec 2019
Posted in District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Baseless or Convoluted Judgment State of Telangana Vs Bodusu Naresh Yadav and Ors | Leave a comment

Dr Gaurav Paul Vs Dr Deepali Arora on 07 May 2016

Posted on November 25, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

All the members of the family accused of 498A IPC offence were discharged as there was no material to prosecute them.

Dr Gaurav Paul Vs Dr Deepali Arora on 07 May 2016

There was once a time when copy of complaint in a 498A IPC case was not given to accused, to exercise FIR Quash etc. Had to file RTI application to Police CPIO !!!

CIC_SS_A_2011_002037_M_77848
Posted in District or Sessions or Magistrate Court 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 CrPC 239 - Discharged Discourage Roping In All Relatives Of In-Laws Or Distant Relatives Dr Gaurav Paul Vs Dr Deepali Arora No Grave Suspicion Against Accused Two Views Possible - Supicion Vs Grave Suspicion | Leave a comment

Post navigation

  • Older posts

Search within entire Content of “Shades of Knife”

My Legal Twitter Timeline

Tweets by @SandeepPamarati

My MRA Twitter Timeline

Tweets by @Shadesofknife

Recent Posts

  • Leena Rakesh Vs Bureau of Immigration on 20 Jun 2022 July 1, 2022
  • Suprit Ishwar Divate Vs State of Karnataka on 10 Jun 2022 June 30, 2022
  • PIL – Implement the Statutory Time limit of 60 days to Dispose of a Domestic Violence case as prescribed under Sec 12(5) of the Act June 30, 2022
  • Gopika Jayan and Anr Vs Faisal on 22 Jun 2022 June 29, 2022
  • Shivanand Gurannavar Vs Basavva on 17 Feb 2022 June 28, 2022

Most Read Posts

  • Jagdish Shrivastava Vs State of Maharashtra on 11 Mar 2022 (1,508 views)
  • Bhagyashri Jagdish Jaiswal Vs Jagdish Sajjanlala Jaiswal and Anr on 26 Feb 2022 (1,466 views)
  • Deepak Sharma Vs State of Haryana on 12 Jan 2022 (830 views)
  • Rajendra Bhagat Vs State of Jharkhand on 03 Jan 2022 (803 views)
  • Luckose Zachariah Vs Joseph Joseph on 18 Feb 2022 (774 views)
  • Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam Vs State of Bihar on 08 Feb 2022 (684 views)
  • Ravneet Kaur Vs Prithpal Singh Dhingra on 24 Feb 2022 (662 views)
  • Prabha Tyagi Vs Kamlesh Devi on 12 May 2022 (560 views)
  • MS Supreme Bhiwandi Wada Manor Infrastructure Pvt Ltd Vs State of Maharashtra on 26 Jul 2021 (461 views)
  • Mukesh Bansal Vs State of UP and Anr on 13 Jun 2022 (440 views)

Tags

Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes (310)Reportable Judgement or Order (297)Landmark Case (294)2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision (223)Work-In-Progress Article (212)Catena of Landmark Judgments (193)1-Judge Bench Decision (110)Sandeep Pamarati (85)3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision (75)Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty (73)Absurd Or After Thought Or Baseless Or False Or General Or Inherently Improbable Or Improved Or UnSpecific Or Omnibus Or Vague Allegations (51)Perjury Under 340 CrPC (51)Reprimands or Setbacks to YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh (49)Summary Post (46)Issued or Recommended Guidelines or Directions (37)CrPC 482 - Quash (37)Rules of the Act/Ordinance/Notification/Circular (33)Advocate Antics (33)PWDV Act 20 - Maintenance Granted (32)IPC 498a - Not Made Out (32)

Categories

Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification (603)Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments (295)High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (152)High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification (104)High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification (88)High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification (62)General Study Material (55)High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification (49)Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications (48)Prakasam DV Cases (46)LLB Study Material (45)Judicial Activism (for Public Benefit) (39)High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification (39)High Court of Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification (35)District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification (32)High Court of Kerala Judgment or Order or Notification (26)High Court of Gujarat Judgment or Order or Notification (24)High Court of Madhya Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (24)High Court of Calcutta Judgment or Order or Notification (18)High Court of Patna Judgment or Order or Notification (15)

Recent Comments

  • ShadesOfKnife on Sirangai Shoba @ Shoba Munnuri Vs Sirangi Muralidhar Rao on 19 October, 2016
  • muralidhar Rao Sirangi on Sirangai Shoba @ Shoba Munnuri Vs Sirangi Muralidhar Rao on 19 October, 2016
  • ShadesOfKnife on J.Shyam Babu Vs The State Of Telangana on 9 February, 2017
  • anuj on J.Shyam Babu Vs The State Of Telangana on 9 February, 2017
  • ShadesOfKnife on Syed Nazim Husain Vs Additional Principal Judge Family Court & Anr on 9 January, 2003

Archives of SoK

  • July 2022 (1)
  • June 2022 (28)
  • 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 (29)
  • 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 (35)
  • November 2019 (4)
  • October 2019 (18)
  • September 2019 (58)
  • August 2019 (33)
  • July 2019 (12)
  • June 2019 (19)
  • 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 (102)
  • 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
  • Vaastav Foundation The Social Reality 0
  • Voice4india Indian Laws, Non-profits, Environment 0
  • Writing Law Writing Law by Ankur 0

RSS Cloudflare Status

  • Increased HTTP 500 Errors in the Dashboard July 2, 2022
    Jul 2, 12:54 UTCIdentified - The issue has been identified and a fix is being implemented.Jul 2, 12:39 UTCInvestigating - Cloudflare is investigating an increased level of HTTP 500 errors in the dashboard. We are working to analyse and mitigate this problem. More updates to follow shortly.
  • Origin performance issues in WAW (Warsaw, Poland) region July 1, 2022
    Jul 1, 12:30 UTCResolved - Cloudflare observed origin performance issues in WAW (Warsaw, Poland) region.This is now resolved and customers shall expect no further impact.
  • Increased HTTP 522 Errors July 1, 2022
    Jul 1, 00:30 UTCResolved - Cloudflare experienced Network connectivity issues in the Chicago region between 00:30 and 00:38 UTC on 07/01. During this time, customers may have experienced 522 errors.

RSS List of Spam Server IPs from Project Honeypot

  • 103.43.141.178 | SD July 1, 2022
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 931 | First: 2019-07-04 | Last: 2022-07-01
  • 134.122.252.108 | S July 1, 2022
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 7 | First: 2022-06-08 | Last: 2022-07-01
  • 103.18.100.245 | SD July 1, 2022
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 11,485 | First: 2022-04-04 | Last: 2022-07-01
Proudly powered by WordPress
Theme: Flint by Star Verte LLC

Bad Behavior has blocked 633 access attempts in the last 7 days.

pixel