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 Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification

Leena Rakesh Vs Bureau of Immigration on 20 Jun 2022

Posted on July 1 by ShadesOfKnife

 

Leena Rakesh Vs Bureau of Immigration on 20 Jun 2022
Posted in High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision Leena Rakesh Vs Bureau of Immigration Look Out Circular Notices | Leave a comment

Suprit Ishwar Divate Vs State of Karnataka on 10 Jun 2022

Posted on June 30 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Karnataka High Court said, provide body cameras to all officers conducting arrests so that a record of the arrest may be made. Also ordered compensation be paid for hand cuffing the accused.

Suprit Ishwar Divate Vs State of Karnataka on 10 Jun 2022
Posted in High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty Grant Compensation For Hand Cuffing Issued or Recommended Guidelines or Directions Right against Hand Cuffing Right against Parading accused in General Public Suprit Ishwar Divate Vs State of Karnataka | Leave a comment

Shivanand Gurannavar Vs Basavva on 17 Feb 2022

Posted on June 28 by ShadesOfKnife

 

Shivanand Gurannavar Vs Basavva on 17 Feb 2022

Citations :

Other Sources :

https://www.latestlaws.com/case-analysis/hc-maintenance-granted-u-s-12-of-dv-act-cannot-be-enhanced-u-s-127-cr-p-c-read-order

Maintenance granted under DV Act cannot be enhanced under CrPC Provisions : Karnataka High Court

Posted in High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision CrPC 125 - No Maintenance was Passed CrPC 127 - Alteration in allowance CrPC 127 - Enhanced Maintenance Set Aside Multiple Maintenances Orders PWDV Act 20 - Maintenance Granted Reportable Judgement or Order Shivanand Gurannavar Vs Basavva Work-In-Progress Article | Leave a comment

Gayatri alias Gadigevva Vs Vijay Hadimani on 03 Dec 2021

Posted on June 28 by ShadesOfKnife

A Single judge of Karnataka High Court (Dharwad bench) held as thus…
(If it feels like biased/pre-judged, I too felt the same)

20. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, the following issue arises for consideration in this writ petition. Whether, it is permissible for a Family Court to summon the medical records of a spouse on the request of the other spouse, especially when it pertained to records relating to any procedures relating to the reproductive choices of the spouse?

Illogical Reasoning of the Court:

22. Regulation 7.14 of the Regulation, 2002, upon which, reliance was placed is a reflection of this declaration. The said regulation reads as follows : 7.14. The registered medical practitioner shall not disclose the secrets of a patient that have been learnt in the exercise of his/her profession except

i) in a court of law under orders of the Presiding Judge;
ii) in circumstances where there is a serious and identified risk to a specific person and / or community ; and
iii) notifiable diseases. In case of communicable / notifiable diseases, concerned public health authorities should be informed immediately.

23. As could be seen in Regulation 7.14 of the Regulations, 2002, there is an absolute embargo on the medical practitioner from disclosing the secrets of a patient that comes within the knowledge of the medical practitioner during the discharge of his professional duties.

24. To this embargo, however, there are three exceptions. The first exception, with which we are concerned, is when a presiding Judge passes an order calling upon the medical practitioner to divulge a secret that he is aware of regarding his patient. Thus, unless there is a specific order of a Judge presiding over a Court of law, no medical practitioner can disclose the secrets that he has become privy to during the discharge of his professional duties.

25. Merely because a Court of law possesses that power to direct the medical practitioner to divulge a secret confided with a medical practitioner, that power would not and should not be exercised merely for the asking or routinely. The power to direct a medical practitioner to act in violation of his declaration should be exercised only for strong and compelling reasons and would be more or less be exercised only when an element of public interest was involved.

26. The Courts, therefore, cannot direct medical practitioners to disclose the secrets that they are privy to Divorce proceeding, by their very nature, is adversarial and more often than not a bitter and acrimonious battle, at times initiated to tarnish the reputation of the warring spouse. Thus, the power of the Court to direct the medical practitioners to divulge secrets that are confided to them should be exercised very sparingly and only for exceptional reasons.

27. In order to get over the bar imposed on the medical practitioners to disclose the secrets of the patients to which they are privy, the Courts should not be asked to exercise their power to secure medical records. If this is permitted, it would mean the Medical practitioner is required to divulge the secrets that the patient has disclosed to him contrary to his professional ethics only because an adversary in litigation wishes to use it to non-suit the other.

28. It is to be kept in mind that the medical records of an individual are very private and are not for public consumption. If the medical record of a person is private to him, a direction to his medical practitioner to produce the medical records or divulge any secret that he is privy to it would essentially amount to infringing the fundamental right of privacy guaranteed to an individual, which emanates from the Right to Life granted under Article 21 of Constitution of India.

Conclusions:

40. The Doctor, even if summoned, cannot by the production of medical records, assist the Court in concluding as to whether the wife had voluntary sexual intercourse with a person other than the husband. If the husband can prove that he had no access to his and if he can establish that his wife had or was having any illicit sexual relationship with another person, the same will have to be established by appropriate evidence as provided under the Evidence Act.

41. In any event, the illicit relationship of a spouse cannot be proved by securing his or her private medical records. In fact, if this approach is to be accepted, it would amount to the destruction of the entire concept of Doctor and patient confidentiality and also drag the Doctor into a marital dispute.

Gayatri alias Gadigevva Vs Vijay Hadimani on 03 Dec 2021

Citations :

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/54113030/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/61c2b9899fca1942b75d83b1

https://www.lawyerservices.in/Gayatri–Gadigevva-Versus-Vijay-2021-12-03


Lower Family Court Divorce Case details:

(: KADW03-000434-2017)


Related News:

Jan 3, 2022, 05:05 IST
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/medical-records-private-cant-be-used-to-prove-adultery-karnataka-hc/articleshow/88655481.cms

Jan 3, 2022, 05:36 IST
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/bengaluru/cant-use-medical-records-to-prove-spouses-relationship-dharwad-bench-of-karnataka-hc/articleshow/88655662.cms

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision Gayatri alias Gadigevva Vs Vijay Hadimani IPC 497 - Adultery Misinterpretation of Earlier Judgment or Settle Principle of Law Right to Privacy | Leave a comment

Dr.Praveen R Vs Dr.Arpitha K.S on 31 Aug 2021

Posted on June 26 by ShadesOfKnife

Single bench of Karnataka High Court nailed the perjuror, A medical doctor.

From point c of Para 4,

c) The vehement contention of Mr. Jhadhav, learned Sr. Adv. that a Police investigation is launched against the petitioner-husband for producing copies of IT Returns and other documents of the respondent and therefore, till after its completion, no action for the commission of alleged perjury can be initiated, is bit difficult to countenance, more particularly, when the authenticity of these documents is not disputed even before this Court; in fact the Court below too has recorded a specific finding to this effect; the said Police investigation has nothing to do with perjury allegedly committed by the respondent; act of perjury is treated as a heinous offence in all civilized societies; consideration of complaints with regard to the same cannot be deferred or delayed; otherwise there is all possibility of the fountain of justice being polluted.
e) Lastly, heavy reliance placed by Mr. Jhadhav on the decision of Apex Court in V.K.Gupta’s case supra, does not much come to his rescue; there are some observations in the said ruling that recognize greater degree of discretion with the Courts in deciding application of the kind, is true; however, that cannot be construed as a discretion of the Moguls; the sages of law like Lord Halsbury have said that discretion means according to rules of reason & justice; the reason assigned by the Court below for holding petitioner’s subject application to be premature, is unsustainable to say the least; the view of the learned trial Judge that petitioner can move similar application subsequently offends sense of justice; applications of the kind need to be considered on merits at the earliest point of time so that a loud message goes to the unscrupulous section of the litigant public as to what would befall the perjuring parties.

Dr.Praveen R Vs Dr.Arpitha K.S on 31 Aug 2021

Citations :

Other Sources :

 

https://www.legitquest.com/case/dr-praveen-r-v-dr-arpitha/1FC5DB

Kar HC | “Act of perjury is treated as a heinous offence in all civilized societies”; Delay in consideration of such complaints can pollute the fountain of justice

https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/karnataka-hc-perjury-complaints-not-to-be-deferred-wifes-false-maintenance-claim-181709

 

Posted in High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Dr.Praveen R Vs Dr.Arpitha K S Perjury - No need to await Perverse Judicial Order Perjury Under 340 CrPC | Leave a comment

Shilpa SC Vs State of Karnataka and Anr on 02 Jun 2022

Posted on June 25 by ShadesOfKnife

A Single Judge of Karnataka High Court held that a woman having illicit relationship with accused does not constitute the commission of the offence.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that only allegation against the petitioner – accused No.5 is that, she is having illicit relationship with accused No.1, who is her legally wedded husband. Hence, the allegation made against the petitioner – accused No.5 does not constitute the commission of the offences alleged against the petitioner. Hence, the registration of FIR for the aforesaid offences is impermissible.

6. The only allegation as against the petitioner – accused No.5 is that she is having illicit relationship with the accused No.1 who is the husband of respondent No.3 – informant. This allegation does not constitute the commission of the offences alleged against the petitioner – accused No.5 and itn the absence of any essential ingredients so as to constitute the commission of the said offences, registration of FIR against accused No.5 is without any substance.

Shilpa SC Vs State of Karnataka and Anr on 02 Jun 2022
Posted in High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Shilpa SC Vs State of Karnataka and Anr | Leave a comment

Rajamma H Vs Thimmaiah V on 09 Jun 2022

Posted on June 24 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Karnataka High Court upheld the law the way it is.

From Para 5,

5. The application is filed admittedly invoking Section 12 of the Act. Sub-section (5) of Section 12 of the Act reads as follows:
“12. Application to Magistrate.-
(5) The Magistrate shall Endeavour to dispose of every application made under sub-section (1) within a period of sixty days from the date of its first hearing.”
Sub-section (5) mandates that every application filed under the Act shall be disposed of by the Court within six months from the date of its presentation. The order sheet reveals that the application was filed on 12-11-2021 seeking maintenance. Six months have passed by. The order sheet does not demonstrate any consideration of the application. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to a mandamus at the hands of this Court or a direction to the learned Magistrate to dispose of the application for maintenance expeditiously.

Rajamma H Vs Thimmaiah V on 09 Jun 2022
Posted in High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision PWDV Act Sec 12(5) - Dispose In 60 Days Rajamma H Vs Thimmaiah V | Leave a comment

Vijaya Mahantesh Mulemane Vs State of Karnataka and Ors on 03 Mar 2022

Posted on March 10 by ShadesOfKnife

This is such an atrocious case whereby the so-called mother flouts the orders passed by Canadian Courts regd Custody of a minor child and reaches India only to file a 498A IPC case. Crooks!

Vijaya Mahantesh Mulemane Vs State of Karnataka and Ors on 03 Mar 2022

The Earlier decision from Karnataka High Court’s Division Bench, where a parenting plan was devised by the judges.

Vijaya Mahantesh Mulemane Vs State of Karnataka and Ors on 22 Nov 2020
Posted in High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Abuse Or Misuse of Process of Court Article 226 - Power of High Courts to issue certain writs Article 227 - Power of superintendence over all courts by the High Court Child Custody Given to Father Guardians and Wards Act Sec 25 - Title of guardian to custody of ward Legal Terrorism Misuse of Women-Centric Laws Vijaya Mahantesh Mulemane Vs State of Karnataka and Ors | Leave a comment

Faisal Ahmed Khan Vs State of Karnataka Mahila PS Bengaluru and Anr on 11 Oct 2019

Posted on January 27 by ShadesOfKnife

Another false case filer bites the dust…

10. Undisputed facts of the case are, petitioner was married with complainant in July 2008. Even after her marriage with the petitioner, complainant was defending the petition for restitution of conjugal rights filed by her previous husband Asif Farooqi. Within about three years after marriage, her relation with petitioner came to an end in August 2011 as per her own admission recorded by the learned Sessions Judge in paragraph No. 14 of his order in Criminal Appeal No. 256/2016. There is yet another judicial finding that complainant had contracted into third marriage with one Asrar Ahmed and given birth to a child. The order also discloses that complainant initiated proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act (DV Act for short) in April 2012. The learned Sessions Judge has also recorded that it was proved by Ex.R7 that complainant had married for third time and ultimately, dismissed the petition. The Criminal Appeal filed thereon has also been dismissed with costs.

11. Not being satisfied, complainant initiated proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. in the year 2014. (C.Mis.No.526/2014) seeking maintenance for her and the child. The said petition has also been rejected so far as complainants claim was concerned.

12. Having thus suffered in the hands of complainant, petitioner also filed a private complaint in PCR No.1085/2016 alleging inter alia that complainant had suppressed her earlier marriage with Asif Ali Farooqi and when questioned about the same, she has filed the instant false complaint. Thereafter, she has married for the third time. With the said allegations, petitioner sought action against complainant and three others for commission of offences punishable under Sections 120A, 120B, 107, 108, 494, 496 read with Section 34 IPC. The learned Magistrate referred the case for investigation under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C. Accordingly, FIR No.149/2016 has been registered on 11th August 2016 in Narasimharaja Police Station, Mysuru City. Records further disclose that complainant and other accused unsuccessfully challenged the said FIR before this Court in Criminal Petition No.1182/2017.

13. Petitioners application under Section 239 Cr.P.C. seeking discharge has been dismissed by the learned trial Judge by recording that presence of accused as on the date of incident and whether marriage is void, cannot be considered at the stage of discharge.

14. A conspectus of facts narrated by the petitioner and the undisputed facts which can be gathered from the records lead to an irresistible inference that though complaint is filed alleging commission of offence under Section 498A IPC, it is, in fact the petitioner who has suffered an untold misery in the hands of the complainant.

15. It cannot be gainsaid that disclosure of a previous subsisting marriage causes immense mental pain and agony to a husband.

16. Complainant has, though unsuccessfully, driven the petitioner to various Courts unabatedly. It started with complainant initiating proceedings under the provisions of DV Act followed by proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. Judicial findings have been recorded by the learned Trial Magistrates in both proceedings with regard to complainants conduct. Learned Magistrate adjudicating proceedings under DV Act has recorded that as per Ex.R7, complainants marriage with her third husband was proved. This finding has been affirmed by the learned Sessions Judge while dismissing the appeal.

17. Suffice to note that records unequivocally disclose that complainant was respondent in a matrimonial case for restitution of conjugal rights initiated by her first husband when she got married with the petitioner. She has admitted this fact in proceedings before the learned Magistrate in proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

18. This is a classic case in which a complainant by initiating criminal proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C and Section 498A IPC against the petitioner has abused the said provisions.

****

20. It is relevant to note that though the complaint contains the allegations recorded above, there is interpolation with regard to the date 03.08.2011, on which date she was allegedly confined in a room and attempt was made to kill her by pouring kerosene. Further, it is stated that Faizal made an attempt to hang her to a Ceiling fan. In the following sentence, it is stated that Faizal made her fall from a motor cycle and tried to kill her. The two allegations that Faizal attempted to hang the complainant and thereafter made her fall from the motor cycle contradict each other. If Faizal had really attempted to hang her, how did she escape from his clutches? No details are forthcoming in this behalf. However, even if it is assumed that the said allegation were true, it is not understandable why she sat on Faisals motor cycle.

22. Thus, the Complaint is full of unbelievable and self contradicting allegations. The first allegation of demand for Rs.3,00,000/- is said to have been made jointly by petitioner and his family members. The second allegation regarding demand of money to purchase a car is alleged jointly against petitioner and his sisters. Thus all allegations in the complaint are omnibus in nature and in the least, made jointly with other accused and there are no specific against the petitioner.

23. After investigation, admittedly police have not filed charge-sheet against accused No.2 to 6 namely Shahjahan Begum, Afzal Ahmed Khan, Parveez Ahamed, Anjum Nazeer and Siddique. Neither the prosecution nor the complainant have placed any other material which may suggest commission of any of the alleged criminal act/s by the petitioner. Therefore, it can be safely concluded that allegations against petitioner are designed to harass him.

Faisal Ahmed Khan Vs State of Karnataka Mahila PS Bengaluru and Anr on 11 Oct 2019

Citations: [2019 SCC ONLINE KAR 3113], [2020 ILR KAR 130], [2020 KCCR 1 236], [2020 AIC 205 770], [2020 AIR KANT R 1 306], [2020 KANT LJ 1 323]

Other Sources:

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5ded72464a932629f01c7297

 

Posted in High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Abuse Or Misuse of Process of Court CrPC 239 - Discharge Rejected CrPC 239 - Discharge Rejection is Set Aside CrPC 239 - When accused shall be discharged Faisal Ahmed Khan Vs State of Karnataka Mahila PS Bengaluru and Anr Legal Terrorism | Leave a comment

Renuka Vs Sangappa on 11 Dec 2019

Posted on November 13, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Karnataka HC held as follow with regards to Cruelty and Desertion grounds as found under Hindu Marriage Act 1955.

From Para 9,

9. The Trial Court examined PWs-1 to 3 and RW-1 and perused Ex.P1 and Exs.R1 to R8. The appellants attitude towards the respondent and staying away from him for years together and so also filing a petition for maintenance in Criminal miscellaneous No.95/2007 and partition suit in O.S.No.73/2005, she has not made any efforts to join her husband. On the other hand, the respondent had filed petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act and petition was not continued on account of appellants readiness and willingness to join the respondent due to which the respondent had withdrawn the petition filed under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act. Even thereafter the appellant had not joined the respondent. The appellant has not apprised the Trial Court as well as before this Court by producing any material evidence and so also what efforts she has made all these years to join the respondent. The contention of the appellant that she is ready to join her husband is only an afterthought for the reasons that she had ample opportunity of joining the respondent during the pendency of M.C.No.4/2010. Now we are in the year 2019. Even during the period from 30.11.2013, the date on which M.C.No.4/2010 was disposed off, till date she has not shown her willingness to join her husband. If her intention was really to join her husband, both Trial and this Court would have made necessary efforts to refer the matter to the Mediation & Conciliation Centre. Therefore, the attitude of the appellant towards respondent for these many years resulted in failure of marriage among the appellant and the respondent. Once the appellant failed to return to her marital home and remained in her parental house for more than one and half decade amounts to both desertion and cruelty.

From Para 16,

16. The principle is, thus, settled that whether in the facts and circumstances of a given case, the plaintiff has been able to make out a case of grant of divorce on the ground of cruelty would depend upon the nature of pleadings and evidence in that case and there can be no straitjacket formula nor an exhaustive list of instances can be prepared, where cruelty is said to have been committed by one or other party to the marriage. Cruelty can also not be inferred by applying any formula because the said question is to be determined keeping in view the social status of the parties, their financial and other conditions, the atmosphere and the kind of employment or vocation which they carry out would all be important to interfere whether on the given set of allegations it has become difficult for the plaintiff to live with the other side and the behaviour of such degree which amounts to the cruelty.

Renuka Vs Sangappa on 11 Dec 2019

Citations :

Other Sources :

https://www.legitquest.com/case/renuka-v-sangappa/1a2cde

https://www.lawyerservices.in/Renuka-Versus-Sangappa-2019-12-11

Posted in High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Catena of Landmark Judgments Divorce granted on Cruelty ground Divorce granted on Desertion ground HM Act 13 - Divorce Granted to Husband Renuka Vs Sangappa Reportable Judgement or Order | 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 640 access attempts in the last 7 days.

pixel