Palagani Samrajyam and Anr Vs Palagani Nagaraju on 30 Dec 2019

It was held that there were no justifiable reasons for living separately.

From Para 13,

13) According to Respondents, the 1st Petitioner voluntarily left the company of the Respondent in the year 2014 and went to her parents house and refused to join him despite several attempts by Respondent. On the other hand, P.Ws.1 and 2 deposed that 1st Petitioner was necked out from matrimonial home on 27/05/2015 after she was severely beaten by the Respondent. It is admitted fact that the Criminal Case was filed by P.W.1 against the Respondent. It is admitted fact that the 1st Petitioner and the 2nd Petitioner are presently residing at the house of parents of 1st Petitioner. The reason for disputes between P.W.1 and the Respondent are not entirely proved. Except for admission of pending Criminal case filed by P.W.1 against the Respondent under Section 498AIPC and the oral evidence of P.Ws.1 and 2, there is no proof produced on behalf of the Petitioners to prove that the Respondent was responsible for beating her and for demanding additional dowry. The initial burden in a Maintenance Case is on the Petitioner and only after proving the facts stated by her, the burden shifts onto the Respondent. In the instant case, as discussed above, none of the allegations levelled by the 1st Petitioner against the Respondent have been proved. Since the fact that the 1st Petitioner and 2nd Petitioner are living separately from the Respondent is undisputed and justifiable reasons for living separately are not established by 1st Petitioner, Point Nos.2 and 3 are answered against the 1st Petitioner and in favour of the Respondent.

Gadesula Radhika Vs Gadesula Rajesh on 22 Jan 2019

Posted on June 19 by ShadesOfKnife

A DJ Court refused to interfere into a maintenance dismissal order for wife, as she voluntarily left the company of respondent.

From Para 11,

11. As seen from the cross examination of P.W.1 she admitted that after their marriage, her sister stayed along with them in Uppal Area, till her marriage and the respondent respected her sister. P.W.1 further admitted that she did not file any documentary proof to show that her mother sold Ac 1.00 land and gave Rs.3,00,000/- to the respondent to settle the matter with Amala Jyothi. P.W.1 also admitted that she studied M.Sc., Computers and she left the house of her husband without informing him and she is not willing to join with the respondent to lead marital life. P.W.1 further admitted that her parents and elders went to Aswapuram for mediation, she filed D.V.C case and Sec.498-A IPC case against him. Except the oral evidence of P.W.1, she did not choose to examine any witnesses or any documentary proof in support her version to prove that her parents gave Rs.10,00,000/- cash to the respondent and also gave Rs.15,00,000/- to the respondent and his father by selling Ac 1.00 land by her mother to settle the dispute with Amala Jyothi and the respondent was addicted to vices and failed to provide maintenance to her. Further as seen from the evidence of P.W.1 and R.W.1 it appears that even the respondent is ready to maintain the petitioner, she is not willing to join the company of respondent to lead marital life. In such circumstances, in the absence of reliable evidence, I am of the considered opinion that the trial court rightly concluded that the petitioner is not entitled for any maintenance from the respondent without sufficient cause as she voluntarily left the company of respondent. Hence, I see there are no valid grounds to interfere with the findings of trial court.

Gadesula Radhika Vs Gadesula Rajesh on 22 Jan 2019

Byru Rajeswari Vs Byru Suresh Babu on 30 Apr 2018

Posted on June 19 by ShadesOfKnife

Maintenance was denied to wife, because she could not prove her allegations with cogent evidences.

From Para 14,

14) Broadly speaking there is no dispute about the legal status of 1st Petitioner as lawfully wedded wife of the Respondent and the legal status of the
2nd Petitioner as the son of the 1st Petitioner and the Respondent. Upon perusal of evidence of P.W.1 and 2 and R.Ws.1 and 2, it is admitted fact that the marriage of 1st Petitioner and Respondent was performed on 13.06.2012. Admittedly P.W.1 and Respondent lived happily for one and 1/2 years i.e., only after few months after the birth of the 2nd Petitioner in the year 2013. Admittedly, P.W.1 began living away from her husband at her parents house when the 2nd Petitioner was aged 11 months old i.e., from March, 2014. There is variation in the evidence of the Petitioners and Respondent as to the exact reasons for separation of P.W.1 from R.W.1. Once it is admitted that P.W.1 is living separately from R.W.1, the burden of proving that she is living separately from R.W.1 for a reasonable cause is on the P.W.1. In support of the same the Petitioner made many allegations regarding the harassment meted out to her at the Respondent’s house during her stay with the Respondent. However, she also admitted that she lived happily for one and half years. Although she alleged that the Respondent did not visit hospital after the 2nd Petitioner was admitted in Hospital for Typhoid fever, P.W.2 admitted that the Respondents were present at the hospital and subsequently she returned back to Respondent’s home. Therefore all the allegations of P.W.1 prior to March, 2014 are not entirely proved. It is admitted by P.W.2 that no complaint was filed against the Respondent and his family with regard to dowry harassment and neither his daughter P.W.1 gave any such complaint. Although, P.W.1 stated in her chief-affidavit that on 19.02.2016 a Complaint was filed against the Respondent by her and the same was registered as Crime No.38/16 no certified copy of the complaint was filed by her and no exhibit was marked in proof of such complaint. The alleged complaint as per P.W.1 pertains to incident on 23.01.2016 when the Respondent and his parents visited P.W.1’s parents house and demanded her signature on divorce papers and pressed her neck and threatened her that they will kill her. Even otherwise the alleged F.I.R in existence relates to incident which occurred in 2016 i.e., two years after P.W.1 started living at her parents house. There are no specific dates mentioned by P.W.1 about the time when she returned to her parents home and the time when she tried to go back to the Respondent’s house with the help of mediators. Apart from admitted facts of P.W.1 that Respondent and herself lived happily for one and half years, she admitted that she does not want to go back to the Respondent even after the Respondent is willing to take her back. P.W.2 also deposed that he is not willing to send the 1st Petitioner to the Respondent’s fold and there were talks through elders by the Respondents but they have not acted or responded to the same. In such circumstances, it can be said that the 1st Petitioner is living separately at her parents house without any reasonable cause and therefore she is not entitled to claim maintenance. Therefore, point No.1 is answered partly in favour of the Respondent and against the 1st Petitioner.

Byru Rajeswari Vs Byru Suresh Babu on 30 Apr 2018

Index here.

State of AP Vs Mannem Trivikram Reddy on 28 Jun 2017

Posted on May 3 by ShadesOfKnife

The JMFC at Kadapa held that Legal Terrorism must be stopped.

From Para 16,

From the evidence of prosecution it is clear that except filing of Maintenance case and a case under Domestic Violence Act seeking monetary relief of one crore rupees, the court cannot come to a safe conclusion that there were cruelty on the part of accused for the want of additional dowry as was also observed by Apex court in the same Judgment at paragraph No.20, as these salutary provisions cannot be allowed to be misused by relatives, parents, etc., the glaring reality cannot be ignored that the early trend of false implication with a view to harass and black mail and innocent spouse and his relatives, is fast emerging. It is time to stop this unhealthy trend which results in unnecessary misery and torture to numerous affected persons. Even with regard to the omissions to make reference of demand in 161 Cr.P.C., statement the observations made in para No.21 can be considered. Apart from all that the investigating officer had not examined the relative of accused also as was specifically contemplated under police standing order 537 more specifically in clause (3) (d) and (g).

State of AP Vs Mannem Trivikram Reddy on 28 Jun 2017

State of AP Vs Pantla Krishna Murthy and Anr on 16 Dec 2022

Posted on January 15 by ShadesOfKnife

A Judicial Magistrate at Vizianagaram passed this Order. Very valid points raised while not finding the accused guilty of the allegations made in the false criminal case.

From Para 23, regarding Dowry givers’ role

Section 3 of Dowry prohibition Act clearly defines the offence as whoever gives or takes Dowry comes under clutches of the Law and punishable. If A1 and A2 were held for demanding Dowry why PW2 father of the PW1 who is also police official well aware of Law has given the Dowry and not taken action against A1 and A2. Instead he alleges he has paid 15,00,000/dowry to A1 and A2. PW2 also comes under the purview of Law and he is also liable for punishment. Here another notion would be taken if it is treated as present made to A1 at the time of marriage which is exemption to this section of law. But the presentations were to be listed and signed by either parties as per mandate of law. That is also not the case here.

Regarding Dowry Allegations:

Prosecution has produced bank statement of A1 dated 7/6/2010 to show his account was deposited by the amounts of Rs 9,66,000/- and Rs 2,00,000/- and got it exhibited through bank manger to prove the amount of Rs 15,00,000/- was given to accused by PW2 before day of the marriage. Here prosecution has not lead any evidence how PW2 paid such huge amount. Whether he obtained loan or he paid from his savings. There might be some document to prove how he raised such huge amount to present the dowry. In the absence of such evidence ExP3 cannot be relied upon. A1 is working in Railway in respectable job and has opportunity to raise such amount even to spent for his marriage expenses. There cannot be a conclusive theory that the entire marriage expenses from both sides would be taken care of the parents of bride. if such is the case they have to produce reliable evidence. The court arrived at the conclusion that whatever the things presented at the time of marriage of PW1 is only presentation though prosecution witnesses has stated that at the time of marriage of PW1 dowry and gold was give to accused. Because if there is demand from accused, PW2 being police official might have initiated action against Accused. PW2 considered at the time of marriage as presentation and presented it without taking action and when marriage tie was strained with misunderstanding between A1 and PW1 and then PW1 and PW2 cannot take stand of dowry subsequently in the year 2016 when marriage took place in the year 2010.

State of AP Vs Pantla Krishna Murthy and Anr on 16 Dec 2022

Sumana Bhasin Vs Neeraj Bhasin on 27 May 2015

Posted on November 2, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Saket Court, New Delhi passed this order.

From Para 41,

41. In light of the above discussion, the Application U/s 12 PWDV Act filed by the complainant is dismissed with a cost of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) to be deposited by the complainant in the account of Blind Relief Association. The imposition of cost is in furtherance of the principle that wrongdoers should not get benefits out of frivolous litigations. Needless to say, all interim orders stand canceled.

Sumana Bhasin Vs Neeraj Bhasin on 27 May 2015

Citations:

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/165927699/

https://www.legalauthority.in/judgement/sumana-bhasin-vs-neeraj-bhasin-9863

https://menkibaat.in/one-lakh-fine-on-wife-for-filing-fake-domestic-violence-case/

Mr.N Vs Mrs.N on 24 Dec 2013

Posted on October 25, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A Family Court judge at Bandra, Mumbai passed order to initiate perjury proceedings against lying knife.

From Para 16,

16. It is settled principle of law that he who seeks equity, must do equity. The fraud and justice cannot dwell together. The justice seeker must step in the Court with clean hands. The dishonest person cannot be entertained by the Court of law. In matrimonial matters persons come with their family problems before the Court and Court makes every possible attempt to find out solution of their problems. In such circumstances, it is the first and foremost responsibility of the party to tell the truth to the Court, so that Court can go to the root of the matter to solve the real dispute. There should not be game of hide and seek when justice is sought from the Court of law. All the Dharmashastras teach us “सतय ं वदं” “Tell the truth”. Foundation of every case must be on true and honest disclosure of facts. No place can be given to lies or falsehood during the course of administration of justice. The person who comes to the Court i.e. house of justice, to seek justice, has to show his bonafides and honesty by making true disclosure of the facts within his knowledge.

Mr.N Vs Mrs.N on 24 Dec 2013

Nahida Rishad Cooper Vs Ali Daruwala and Ors on 25 Feb 2022

Posted on September 13, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of a Sessions Court in Mumbai held as follows:

From Para 5,

5] Perusal of the application under Section 12 of the D. V. Act filed by the applicant has several references to the alleged domestic violence committed by the respondent No. 1. It is not in dispute that he resides separately and not with the appellant or the respondent No. 1. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate in his impugned order has observed that since the respondent No. 1 never resided with the appellant in any shared household he cannot be considered to be the respondent as defined by Section 2 (q) of the D. V. Act. He, therefore, omitted him from the array of the respondents in the main application.

From Para 6,

6] Such an observation of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate however, is wholly misplaced. It is for the simple reason that the proviso to Section 2 (q) of the D. V. Act makes it very clear that an aggrieved wife can also file a complaint against a relative of the husband. The Act nowhere mandates that an aggrieved person can seek relief only against the persons who have shared household with her. Had that been so, it would have been very convenient to cause violence or any other trouble to the aggrieved person through the relatives not sharing the same household and yet remained out of the clutches of the D. V. Act. Rather, holding that any relative of the husband if not sharing or shared the same household cannot be a respondent would amount to giving licence to those relatives to commit violence to the aggrieved person and thereby rendering the very Act meaningless. That just cannot be and certainly was not the intention while enacting the said statute. As observed earlier, there are sufficient references to show that the respondent No. 1 was also a party to the domestic violence committed to the appellant. As such, the proceedings against him was certainly tenable. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate was obviously wrong in holding that the respondent No. 1 since not shared the household with the appellant could not be a respondent as defined by Section 2 (q) of the D. V. Act. Consequently, the impugned order cannot sustain.

Nahida Rishad Cooper Vs Ali Daruwala and Ors on 25 Feb 2022

A Revision was dismissed by the Bombay High Court here.

Index of DV Cases here.

Manoj Kumar Vs State (NCT of Delhi) on 17 Mar 2018

Posted on July 5, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A District Court in Delhi passed this details Judgment, relying on earlier Madras HC judgment here.

From Para 7,

At this juncture, reference may be made to Saleem P.A. etc. v. State reported as (1994) 2 LW (Crl.) 402, which is relevant for the present purpose. Paragraph 24 thereof is reproduced as under:
“ 24. In view of the discussion as above, the following positions emerge:
1. Issuance of a warrant of arrest by a Court under the Code shall remain in force beyond the date fixed for its return, until it is cancelled or executed.
2. Since the court, which issued the warrant has the power to cancel it, it is but necessary for the person against whom a warrant of arrest had been issued to approach the said Court, by his personal appearance, for its cancellation, which issued it.
3. Once a person accused of an offence against whom a warrant of arrest had been issued makes his personal appearance, with a petition for its cancellation, before the Court, which issued it, it behaves on its part not to take him into custody and send him to prison immediately after his appearance, but to pass an order on such petition, forthwith, without brooking any sort of a delay and if the order so passed ends in his favour, he
shall be bound over to appear before court on an earliest date fixed for hearing on trial, as the case may be, or otherwise, he could be taken into custody forthwith and sent to prison, with a direction to the prison authorities for his production before court on the earliest date fixed for such hearing or trial is over, so as to enable it to proceed, with ease and grace, and without any obstruction whatever, thereby not affecting in the least his right to speedy trial, a goal to be achieved, as enshrined under Article 21 of the Constitution, or on his application, being presented, release him on bail, on his executing a bond for a specified sum, with sufficient number of sureties, for such sum to secure his appearance on the dates fixed for hearing or trial, as the case may be.
4. However, a person aggrieved by an order of refusal of the cancellation by a Magistrate, who issued the same, can further agitate the same, if he so desires, by filing a revision, either under Section 397 or 401 of the Code, and then resort to invoke the inherent power of this court under Section 482 of the Code, if grounds for resortment to such a course existed (emphasis supplied).”
In the light of above discussion, it is clear that the present revision petition is maintainable.

Manoj Kumar Vs State (NCT of Delhi) on 17 Mar 2018

Citations :

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/108983018/

NBW judgments here.

Dr.Arpitha K.S. Vs Dr. Praveen R on 16 Jun 2020

Posted on July 4, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

Bad cross-examination led to Part allowance of this DV case.

Dr.Arpitha K.S. Vs Dr. Praveen R on 16 Jun 2020

Index here.

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

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

Palagani Samrajyam and Anr Vs Palagani Nagaraju on 30 Dec 2019

Gadesula Radhika Vs Gadesula Rajesh on 22 Jan 2019

Byru Rajeswari Vs Byru Suresh Babu on 30 Apr 2018

State of AP Vs Mannem Trivikram Reddy on 28 Jun 2017

State of AP Vs Pantla Krishna Murthy and Anr on 16 Dec 2022

Sumana Bhasin Vs Neeraj Bhasin on 27 May 2015

Mr.N Vs Mrs.N on 24 Dec 2013

Nahida Rishad Cooper Vs Ali Daruwala and Ors on 25 Feb 2022

Manoj Kumar Vs State (NCT of Delhi) on 17 Mar 2018

Dr.Arpitha K.S. Vs Dr. Praveen R on 16 Jun 2020