Result of not following the legal procedure dutifully can be seen in this DVC.
Polugoni Jyothi Vs Polugoni Sydulu on 5 August, 2013Category: Prakasam DV Cases
Darsi Saritha Vs Darsi Srinivasa Rao on 24 June, 2013
Another one of those ex parte DVC dole outs to Knife.
Darsi Saritha Vs Darsi Srinivasa Rao on 24 June, 2013
Kondrajula @ Syed Saroja Vs Syed Malik on 20 February, 2013
This DVC is dismissed due to this.
Kondrajula @ Syed Saroja Vs Syed Malik on 20 February, 2013Coming to the aspect of dowry harassment of P.w.1 in the hands of respondent, as the very performance of marriage between P.w.1 and respondent is not proved by P.w.1 and further even P.w.1 failed to prove that both of them lived together under one roof, I am of the opinion that there is no need to discuss anything more with regard to demand of dowry and harassment of P.w.1 in the hands of respondent.
Yanamala Srilakshmi Vs Late Yanamala Ravi @ Ravindra on 14 February, 2018
Read Para 10 to know the arbitrary way Protection order is granted solely by the deposition of Knife, wherein husband is long dead to challenge it.
Yanamala Srilakshmi Vs Late Yanamala Ravi @ Ravindra on 14 February, 2018Now coming to the relief sought by the petitioner that is pertaining to maintenance and residential
orders, the allegation against the respondent as per P.W1 is that the respondent started harassing P.W1. On this aspect P.w1 elaborately deposed that about the harassment of R1 to R3 in her evidence. At one instance she and her child also confined in a room and not provided with food. After seven or eight days her parents came and saved their life. Subsequently she was treated by the parents now she is depending upon her parents mercy. Further coming to the aspect of Protection orders in view of above discussion, it is clear that the petitioner is entitled for Protection order.
Kasukurthy Vijaya Kumari Vs Kasukurthy Bhaskar Subbarao on 6 August, 2013
One nice point raised by the Hon’ble judge in this order
Further it is admitted by P.w.1 and P.w.3 that R.2 who is a retired court employee has deposited Rs.2,25,000/- jointly in the name of P.w.1 and R.w.1 and also Rs.2,25,000/- in the name of younger brother of R.1, if that is so, where is the need for R.2 to harass P.w.1 to bring additional dowry along with R.1, R.3 to R.5, if really R.1 to R.5 harassed P.w.1 demanding P.w.1 to bring additional dowry, there is no need and necessity for R.2 to deposit Rs.2,25,000/- in the joint name of P.w.1 and R.w.1 from out of his retired benefits.
Kasukurthy Vijaya Kumari Vs Kasukurthy Bhaskar Subbarao on 6 August, 2013
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
Shaik Khasim Bi Vs Shaik Nagur Basha on 5 August, 2014
Maintenance is allowed in this judgment.
Shaik Khasim Bi Vs Shaik Nagur Basha on 5 August, 2014
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
Chandra Sukanya Devi Vs Chandra Srinivasulu on 18 November, 2014
This DVC is dismissed as there is earlier IPC 498A which was dismissed based on Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court judgment in Markapuram Siva Rao & Others Vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 30 April, 2013.
Chandra Sukanya Devi Vs Chandra Srinivasulu on 18 November, 2014
Ravilla Sasikala Vs Ravilla Venkata Swamy on 31 July, 2013
Nothing to write about. Maintenance granted in this DVC.
Ravilla Sasikala Vs Ravilla Venkata Swamy on 31 July, 2013
