Shaik Haseena Vs Md. Karimulla on 29 June, 2016

Posted on June 30, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This case deals with economic abuse aspect of Domestic Violence Act.

From Para 21,

Though she deposed the above allegations in the above manner the said alleged facts stated by petitioner in her chief examination were not mentioned in her petition. For the 1st time she came up with all the above allegations in her evidence. Moreover if really her version of allegations about respondent family is true that is the respondent family trying to kill her, no women will be dare enough to stay in her in laws house even after their attempt to kill her. Further on this aspect it is also stated by her that her parents would come on the next day after receiving the information which is unbelievable. So, all the allegations against respondent and his family members appeared unbelievable and omnibus allegations.

The cherry on the cake declaration by the judge come in this para 23. Enjoy the misandrist rhetoric…

But he is not doing so, the same is also admitted by him in his cross examination that he is not paying any maintenance to pay the petitioner and his daughter. So, such attitude of remaining idle without maintaining his wife and child depending upon others also creates a mental agony to the Indian wife, particularly as the husband is bounded to maintain his family even though she is divorced unable to maintain herself. Moreover, it is also settled legislation that a able bodied husband is liable to maintain his wife and children even though he has no employment. Hence, the circumstances and the attitude of the respondent comes under purview of economic abuse as per domestic violence act. Hence, it is well established by the petitioner that she faced economic abuse in the hands of respondents. Accordingly she is entitled for maintenance.

Shaik Haseena Vs Md. Karimulla on 29 June, 2016

Tanguturi Sai Kumari Vs Tanguturi Vamsi Krishna on 2 November, 2016

Posted on June 29, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

In this case, the Knife alleged that her husband used to level false allegations of unchastity to her whenever her relatives were coming to the house of the respondent or ultimately after talking with one of her relatives over telephone, at any point of time after coming from the house of the respondent.

In Para 9, the Hon’ble Court held as

The evidence of the relatives of the petitioner who are said to have visited the house of the respondent when the petitioner was residing with the respondent, and also the evidence of the relative with whom the petitioner was talking over telephone prior to her alleged necking out from the house by the respondent are best evidence to establish the allegations of the petitioner against the respondent about the reason for imputing false allegations of unchastity to her. None of the said relatives of the petitioner are examined on the side of the petitioner to establish the very cause for the respondent to level allegation of unchastity to the petitioner leading this Court to draw an adverse inference against the petitioner under section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act. It is not in dispute that the respondent has filed HMOP 65/2014 on the file of Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole for divorce on the ground of cruelty against the petitioner. The cross-examination of the petitioner indicates that she has filed present petition after four or five months after coming to the house of her parents. The respondent contends that as counter blast to the HMOP 65/2014 filed against the petitioner the present petition has been pressed into service by the petitioner.

Tanguturi Sai Kumari Vs Tanguturi Vamsi Krishna on 2 November, 2016

Challa Mahalakshmi Vs Challa Babu Rao on 16 April, 2018

Posted on June 29, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

In this case, there was mischief played by husband together with his mother to usurp the portion of home which is in the name in wife.

From Para 9,

Therefore, in view of foregoing discussion this Court holds that the petitioner is entitled to reside her own house as she is the absolute rightful owner of the house sanctioned to her by the government under DK Patta for an extent of Ac.0-03 cents in the Sy.No.214 of Maddipadu village.

From Para 10,

In exercise of the powers conferred under section 37 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the Central Government makes rules under Rules 6 :- Application to the Magistrate:- (1) Every application of the aggrieved person under section 12 shall be in Form-II or as nearly as possible thereto. Hence, from the perusal of the aforesaid provision of law, it is clear that it is not imperative for the court to file Form-II.
Further see section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005:- An applicant/complainant can be filed before the Court either by an aggrieved person or by a Protection Officer or any other person on behalf of the aggrieved person. In this way section 12(1) does not contemplated that such application should invariably be accompanied by a report from a protection officer. On perusal of proviso appended to the provision, it appears that before passing any order on the application, it is obligatory on the Court to take into consideration any report received by it from the protection officer or the service provider. Neither it is obligatory to the Court to call such report nor it is necessary that before issuance of the notice to the respondents it was obligatory for the court to consider the report. However, if any report from the protection officer is available before the Court that shall taken into consideration, but the law does not impose pre-condition for the Court to call for a report from the protection officer.

Domestic Violence, is, perse, not a criminal offence, but is defined extensively and comprehensively to include various conditions.

Challa Mahalakshmi Vs Challa Babu Rao on 16 April, 2018

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

Tagaram Raja Kumari Vs Cherukuri Aruna Kumar on 20 January, 2015

Posted on June 29, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Hon’ble court in this judgment ordered monthly maintenance, protection order, residence order, compensation and also litigation costs.

From Para 10,

The respondents dispute the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent no.1 and the status of the petitioner as the legally wedded wife of the respondent no.1. No doubt the petitioner did not produce any marriage certificate issued by the authorities of Poleramma temple, Nalgonda, and admittedly PW2 did not attend their marriage, however, the petition under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, is maintainable even if a woman has failed to prove that she is the legally wedded wife of the man, provided she shows a domestic relationship existed between them, and that she had lived together along with the man in the shared house hold. Such evidence is given by PW1 before this Court, and that there is no evidence in rebuttal. The evidence of PW1 regarding domestic relationship with respondent no.1 in the shared household and her subjection to domestic violence by the respondents is also corroborated with the evidence of PW2, her paternal grandfather, and the said testimonies of PW1 and PW2 is also not destroyed in material particulars by the respondents during the course of their cross-examination except giving suggestions that were denied by them. When the respondents denies the relationship itself, it can be used as one of the circumstances against them for the proof of domestic violence. The evidence of PW1 and PW2 prove that the petitioner was neglected by the respondents and subjected to domestic violence for dowry. This point is answered accordingly in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.

Tagaram Raja Kumari Vs Cherukuri Aruna Kumar on 20 January, 2015

Kandula Lakshmi Vs Kandula Raghava Rao on 22 December, 2015

Posted on June 29, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

In this case, the Husband has not filed a Counter in response to DV Case on him by his Knife but did a namesake cross-examination. Hon’ble Court has granted Maintenance, Residential and Compensation reliefs as there was no challenge made to the allegations of Knife.

Kandula Lakshmi Vs Kandula Raghava Rao on 22 December, 2015

Peddi Anusha Vs Peddi Vamsi Krishna on 4 August, 2016

Posted on June 28, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

In this case, Hon’ble Court has set the Husband his family as ex parte as the husband just filed a Counter in response to a DV Case on him by his Knife but later did not join the proceedings ever. Granted Maintenance and Compensation as there was no challenge made to the allegations of Knife.

Peddi Anusha Vs Peddi Vamsi Krishna on 4 August, 2016

Ravuri Sujatha Vs Hanumantha Rao on 9 September, 2016

Posted on June 28, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

In continuation of the case posted here, in this order, Hon’ble court ordered the respondent-husband to pay interim monthly maintenance @ Rs.4,000/- to the petitioner from the date of this order till the disposal of DVC, whereas the request from Knife was to grant Rs.25,000/- per month.

Ravuri Sujatha Vs Hanumantha Rao on 9 September, 2016

Ravuri Sujatha Vs Hanumantha Rao on 29 August, 2016

Posted on June 28, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

In this case Knife claims to be wife of respondent and he denies same. In this context, this application was moved to receive some documents by the court. and Hon’ble court has held that the documents are received on the record of the case with subject to their proof, relevancy and admissibility.

Ravuri Sujatha Vs Hanumantha Rao on 29 August, 2016

Continue here.

Barakam Rama Devi Vs Barakam Venu Babu on 6 February, 2017

Posted on June 28, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Domestic Violence is proved in this case and reliefs granted by Hon’ble Court. Illegal affair is alleged by Husband and Wife Could not produce any documentary evidence to prove his salary or agricultural land.

Barakam Rama Devi Vs Barakam Venu Babu on 6 February, 2017

Guduri Niroosha Vs Guduri Dakshina Murthy on 16 October 2017

Posted on June 28, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

In this case, Domestic Violence on Knife by husband is proved hence all reliefs requested are granted by Hon’ble Court.

Guduri Niroosha Vs Guduri Dakshina Murthy on 16 October 2017

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Category: Prakasam DV Cases

Shaik Haseena Vs Md. Karimulla on 29 June, 2016

Tanguturi Sai Kumari Vs Tanguturi Vamsi Krishna on 2 November, 2016

Challa Mahalakshmi Vs Challa Babu Rao on 16 April, 2018

Tagaram Raja Kumari Vs Cherukuri Aruna Kumar on 20 January, 2015

Kandula Lakshmi Vs Kandula Raghava Rao on 22 December, 2015

Peddi Anusha Vs Peddi Vamsi Krishna on 4 August, 2016

Ravuri Sujatha Vs Hanumantha Rao on 9 September, 2016

Ravuri Sujatha Vs Hanumantha Rao on 29 August, 2016

Barakam Rama Devi Vs Barakam Venu Babu on 6 February, 2017

Guduri Niroosha Vs Guduri Dakshina Murthy on 16 October 2017