Maintenance ordered in this judgment.
Category: Prakasam DV Cases
Pothuri Lakshmi Vs Pothuri Kiran on 30 September, 2016
This is from Para 20 of this judgment. Read and enjoy.
Hence, it is well Further it is also settled, that the present Act does not make any exception, in favour of those who are physically challenged. The Act recognizes that right of women to be maintained even by a physically challenged husband. Thus the contention of husband that he is not working and not earning is unstainable. Further more, economic abuse means deprivation of all or any economic or financial resources to which woman is entitled under any law or custom. It is customary that a man is legally and morally obligated to provide material needs and means of livelihood to a wife and child. Hence, it is well established by the petitioner that she faced economic abuse in the hands of respondents. Accordingly she is entitled for maintenance.
Saiba Sreedevi Vs Saiba Sridhara Rao on 26 June, 2013
No DV was proved by Knife hence DVC is dismissed
Boyapati Bharathi Vs Boyapati Srinivasa Rao on 6 March, 2018
No comment. Just read
Velpula Kalyani Vs Velpula Venkata Rao on 4 December, 2017
It seems, the burden of proof is pushed onto the husband who has to prove that he didn’t commit DV. This is the essence of this judgment.
Note: The husband was acquitted in the IPC 498A case filed by Knife. Here is the judgment.
Ganipineni Sudharani Vs Ganipineni KrishnaMohan on 2 May, 2017
Here is another BS judgment from same justice. Blatant misinterpretation of an earlier Supreme Court order to cause advantage to the party of Knife. Either by ignorance or for kickbacks received. God Knows
Shame on him.
Kasukurthi Sowjanya Vs Kasukurthi Venkata Rao on 18 February, 2016
Knife lied in cross-examination in court quite in contradiction with content in her petition and judge tossed it into dustbin.
Gunakala Durga Rani Vs Gunakala Sudhakar on 6 January 2015
The Knife got here DV petition dismissed. LOL
Key points
- Unexplained delay
- Dowry not proved
- No return of articles given voluntarily
Tirumalasetty Jyothirmayi Vs Peddisetty Venkata Siva Sai Ram on 20 April, 2017
Another BS judgment here. Don’t want to write anything about it. Help yourself.
Pathan Bazidhunnisa Vs Shaik Shafiul Rahman on 21 July, 2016
Another sh_t of judgment here. Read this entire Para 9 for the entertainment.
As seen the allegations of the petitioner, she was being demanded by the Respondents for want of additional dowry. But there is no proof for that. This Court feels that demanding additional dowry is not an offence. As far as the Domestic Violence Act is concerned, to deal the said offence, there is a separate legislation is enacted. But the quantum of mental agony which an innocent woman faced when she is not in a position to meet the financial requirements of the husband shall have to be understand in the prospective of legislation. The petitioner stated in her evidence that the Respondents harassed her for want of additional dowry. For asking the proof of Domestic Harassment against a woman, is not feasible in all the circumstances. It is depend upon the circumstances of a party. When the husband demands additional dowry, the demand must be took place inside the wall and no third party will have an opportunity to witness the said demand. Logically no husband demands the dowry or other articles in front of others. Obviously, any demand for want of dowry will be took place within four corners of the wall. For proving that fact, evidence may not require. The victim evidence itself is sufficient to prove her case. It is not a standard proof of believing of a particular fact. It is depend upon the circumstances. When the allegation of harassment was depicted by the petitioner herself, the demeanor of the witness manner which she speaks will play a vital role in deciding the case. Because, no third party will have an opportunity to see the harassment alleged to be happened against the petitioner. Therefore, this court feels that Pw1 evidence is alone sufficient to prove her version. If the respondents really did not commit any offence, they should come to the court and defend the case. But the defendants did not choose to put forth their defence in any manner. They fail to attend before this court in all hearing dates. In view of the no challenging the testimony of witness, this court holds the issue in favor of petitioner.
