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: Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification

V.D. Bhanot Vs Savita Bhanot on 07 February 2012

Posted on May 15, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court In this case, upheld the view taken by the Delhi High Court that the conduct of the parties even prior to the coming into force of the Domestic Violence Act, could be taken into consideration while passing an order under Sections 18, 19 and 20 thereof. Even if a wife, who had shared a household in the past, but was no longer doing so when the Act came into force, would still be entitled to the protection of the Act.

V.D. Bhanot Vs Savita Bhanot on 07 February 2012

Two more Orders after the above one were passed.

V.D. Bhanot Vs Savita Bhanot on 04 April 2012

Order u/s 19

V.D. Bhanot Vs Savita Bhanot on 07 February 2013

Citations: []

Other Source links:


The index page is here.

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Landmark Case PWDV Act Sec 19 - Residential Order (Rent) Granted Reportable Judgement or Order V.D. Bhanot Vs Savita Bhanot Work-In-Progress Article | Leave a comment

Sandhya Manoj Wankhade Vs Manoj Bhimrao Wankhade and Ors on 31 January 2011

Posted on May 15, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court held that Women can also be made respondents in a DV case.

From Paras 12, 13 and 14,

12. From the above definition it would be apparent that although Section 2(q) defines a respondent to mean any adult male person, who is or has been in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person, the proviso widens the scope of the said definition by including a relative of the husband or male partner within the scope of a complaint, which may be filed by an aggrieved wife or a female living in a relationship in the nature of a marriage.
13. It is true that the expression “female” has not been used in the proviso to Section 2(q) also, but, on the other hand, if the Legislature intended to
exclude females from the ambit of the complaint, which can be filed by an aggrieved wife, females would have been specifically excluded, instead of
it being provided in the proviso that a complaint could also be filed against a relative of the husband or the male partner. No restrictive meaning has been given to the expression “relative”, nor has the said expression been specifically defined in the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, to make it specific to males only.
14. In such circumstances, it is clear that the legislature never intended to exclude female relatives of the husband or male partner from the ambit of a complaint that can be made under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

Sandhya Manoj Wankhade Vs Manoj Bhimrao Wankhade and Ors on 31 January 2011

Citations: []

Other Source links:


After more than 5 long years, Supreme Court has struck down two words “Adult male” from Sec 2(q) of PWDV Act 2005 here.


The index page is here.

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes PWDV Act Sec 2(q) – Women Can Be Respondents In PWDV Case Reportable Judgement or Order Sandhya Manoj Wankhade Vs Manoj Bhimrao Wankhade and Ors Work-In-Progress Article | Leave a comment

D. Velusamy Vs D. Patchaiammal on 21 October 2010

Posted on May 15, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Justice Katju held as follows:

33. In our opinion a ‘relationship in the nature of marriage’ is akin to a common law marriage. Common law marriages require that although not
being formally married :-
(a) The couple must hold themselves out to society as being akin to spouses.
(b) They must be of legal age to marry.
(c) They must be otherwise qualified to enter into a legal marriage, including being unmarried.
(d) They must have voluntarily cohabited and held themselves out to the world as being akin to spouses for a significant period of time.

In our opinion a ‘relationship in the nature of marriage’ under the 2005 Act must also fulfill the above requirements, and in addition the parties
must have lived together in a ‘shared household’ as defined in Section 2(s) of the Act. Merely spending weekends together or a one night stand would not make it a ‘domestic relationship’.

D. Velusamy Vs D. Patchaiammal on 21 October 2010

Citations: []

Other Source links:

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to D. Velusamy Vs D. Patchaiammal In the Nature of Marriage Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes PWDV Act Sec 2(f) - Domestic Relationship Reportable Judgement or Order Work-In-Progress Article | Leave a comment

Kiran Bedi Vs Committee of Inquiry and Anr on 04 January 1989

Posted on May 15, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court cited Bhagawad Gita as follows:

The reason for the importance attached with regard to the matter of safeguarding the reputation of a person being prejudicially affected in Clause (b) of Section 8-B of the Act is not far to seek.
The following words of caution uttered by the Lord to Arjun in Bhagwad Gita with regard to dishonour or loss of reputation may usefully be quoted:

“Akirtinchapi Bhutani Kathaishyanti te-a-vyayam, Sambhavitasya Chakirtir maranadatirichyate”
(Men will recount thy perpetual dishonour, and to one highly esteemed, dishonour exceedeth death)

Kiran Bedi Vs Committee of Inquiry and Anr on 04 January 1989

Citations: []

Other Source links:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/220787/ (Earlier Judgment of SC: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/781145/)

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Kiran Bedi Vs Committee of Inquiry and Anr Right to Reputation | Leave a comment

Public Interest Foundation and Ors Vs Union of India and Anr on 25 September 2018

Posted on May 12, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court respecting separation of powers in the Indian democracy, acknowledged that there are criminals to a large part in Parliament and in State Legislatures but held that it cannot legislate on behalf of Parliament. Still it issue some guidelines as follows.

  1. Each contesting candidate shall fill up the form as provided by the Election Commission and the form must contain all the particulars as required therein.

  2. It shall state, in bold letters, with regard to the criminal cases pending against the candidate.

  3. If a candidate is contesting an election on the ticket of a particular party, he/she is required to inform the party about the criminal cases pending against him/her.

  4. The concerned political party shall be obligated to put up on its website the aforesaid information pertaining to candidates having criminal antecedents.

  5. The candidate as well as the concerned political party shall issue a declaration in the widely circulated newspapers in the locality about the antecedents of the candidate and also give wide publicity in the electronic media. When we say wide publicity, we mean that the same shall be done at least thrice after filing of the nomination papers.

Public Interest Foundation and Ors Vs Union of India and Anr on 25 September 2018

Citations: [(2019) 3 SCC 224]

Other Source links: https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2018/09/25/candidates-with-criminal-antecedents-parliament-has-exclusive-jurisdiction-to-lay-down-disqualification-for-membership-court-cannot-legislate-sc/ or https://indiankanoon.org/doc/146283621/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5baaa0749eff430ce652f5c8


The directions given in this Judgment were not followed by Political parties and their candidates, Hence a contempt petition was filed for violating Supreme Court Orders here.

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 5-Judge Constitutional Bench Decision Election Matter Public Interest Foundation and Ors Vs Union of India and Anr Reportable Judgement or Order | Leave a comment

Rambabu Singh Thakur Vs Sunil Arora on 13 February 2020

Posted on May 12, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Justice Rohinton F Nariman has passed the following directions, sitting in a division bench along with Justice S. Ravindra Bhat,

From Para 4,

4. We have also noted that the political parties offer no explanation as to why candidates with pending criminal cases are selected as candidates in the first place. We therefore issue the following directions in exercise of our constitutional powers under Articles 129 and 142 of the Constitution of India:
1) It shall be mandatory for political parties [at the Central and State election level] to upload on their website detailed information regarding individuals with pending criminal cases (including the nature of the offences, and relevant particulars such as whether charges have been framed, the concerned Court, the case number etc.) who have been selected as candidates, along with the reasons for such selection, as also as to why other individuals without criminal antecedents could not be selected as candidates.
2) The reasons as to selection shall be with reference to the qualifications, achievements and merit of the candidate concerned, and not mere “winnability” at the polls.
3) This information shall also be published in:
(a) One local vernacular newspaper and one national newspaper;
(b) On the official social media platforms of the political party, including Facebook & Twitter.
4) These details shall be published within 48 hours of the selection of the candidate or not less than two weeks before the first date for filing of nominations, whichever is earlier.
5) The political party concerned shall then submit a report of compliance with these directions with the Election Commission within 72 hours of the selection of the said candidate.
6) If a political party fails to submit such compliance report with the Election Commission, the Election Commission shall bring such non-compliance by the political party concerned to the notice of the Supreme Court as being in contempt of this Court’s orders/directions.

Rambabu Singh Thakur Vs Sunil Arora on 13 February 2020

Citations: [2020 SCC OnLine SC 178]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/178919210/ or https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2020/02/13/sc-directs-political-parties-to-publish-criminal-antecedents-of-candidates-give-reasons-for-their-selection/ or https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/rambabu-singh-thakur-versus-sunil-arora-ors


The original Judgment is here.

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Public Interest Litigation Rambabu Singh Thakur Vs Sunil Arora Reportable Judgement or Order | Leave a comment

Santosh Prasad Vs The State of Bihar on 14 February 2020

Posted on May 11, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court discussed who can be a Sterling witness on whose deposition can a conviction be based and this packed this false rape case into Dustbin.

Santosh Prasad Vs The State of Bihar on 14 February 2020

Citations: [AIR 2020 SC 985]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/68886715/ or https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/santosh-prasad-santosh-kumar-versus-the-state-of-bihar

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision False Incest Or Rape Or Sexual Or Sexual Harassment Allegations Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Reportable Judgement or Order Santosh Prasad Vs The State of Bihar Sterling Witness | Leave a comment

New India Assurance Co Ltd Vs Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt Ltd on 4 March 2020

Posted on May 10, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Justice Vineet Saran sitting in a 5-Judge bench delivered this reference judgment on the following two questions of law.

Question-1

Whether the District Forum has power to extend the time for filing of response to the complaint beyond the period of 15 days, in addition to 30 days, as envisaged under Section 13(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act?

Answered as follows:

To conclude, we hold that our answer to the first question is that the District Forum has no power to extend the time for filing the  response to the complaint beyond the period of 15 days in addition to 30 days as is envisaged under Section 13 of the Consumer  Protection Act

Question-2

What would be the commencing point of limitation of 30 days under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986?

Answered as follows:

the answer to the second question is that the commencing point of limitation of 30 days under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act would be from the date of receipt of the notice accompanied with the complaint by the opposite party, and not mere receipt of the notice of the complaint.

New India Assurance Co Ltd Vs Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt Ltd on 4 March 2020

Citations: [AIR 2020 SC 1267], [2020 SCC OnLine SC 287]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/96395504/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5e69d2383321bc624fea2d34

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 5-Judge Constitutional Bench Decision CP Act 13(2) - Commencement of the Period of Limitation Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Mandatory or Directory New India Assurance Co Ltd Vs Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt Ltd Reportable Judgement or Order Sandeep Pamarati Work-In-Progress Article | Leave a comment

RE Vijay Kurle and Ors on 04 May 2020

Posted on May 8, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court has rejected all of the interim application filed by the contemnors and held that they have no valid grounds to entertain the interim applications challenging the very judgment itself and for recalling of judgment.

RE Vijay Kurle and Ors on 04 May 2020
Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Advocate Antics Imprisonment For Contempt Of Court RE Vijay Kurle and Ors | Leave a comment

Yashita Sahu Vs State of Rajasthan on 20 January 2020

Posted on April 30, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Father given custody of minor girl-child.

Yashita Sahu Vs State of Rajasthan on 20 January 2020

Citations: AIR 2020 SC 577

Other Source links:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/144083733/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5e2585f53321bc6def498ecc

https://www.reddyandreddy.org/parent-who-is-denied-custody-still-has-the-right-to-talk-to-the-child-everyday/

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Child Custody Given to Father Writ of Habeas Corpus Yashita Sahu Vs State of Rajasthan | Leave a comment

Post navigation

  • Older posts
  • Newer posts

Search within entire Content of “Shades of Knife”

My Legal X Timeline

Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Follow

AP High Court Advocate with M Tech (CS) || 12 years in 'Software Industry' as Solution Architect || Blogs at https://t.co/29CB9BzK4w || #TDPTwitter

SandeepPamarati
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
meghupdates Megh Updates 🚨™ @meghupdates ·
24 Jun

Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh | In a key breakthrough in the case involving the alleged sexual assault of a 6-year-old girl, police sniffer dog Mary helped investigators trace the accused monster, Sandeep, within minutes.

A gamcha recovered from the scene was used for scent tracking,

Reply on Twitter 2069765085422374920 Retweet on Twitter 2069765085422374920 380 Like on Twitter 2069765085422374920 2436 X 2069765085422374920
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
telugu360 Telugu360 @telugu360 ·
24 Jun

వాట్సాప్‌లో నన్ను తిట్టేది, పొగిడేది మీరే. పది నిర్ణయాలు తీసుకుంటే మూడు తప్పులు అవ్వచ్చు.. ఆ తప్పులను సరిదిద్దుకుని ముందడుగు వేద్దాం. నన్ను తిట్టిన వారిని నేనెప్పుడూ బ్లాక్ చేయను, వారి ఆవేదనను స్వీకరిస్తా.

నారా లోకేష్

#NaraLokesh

Reply on Twitter 2069778787244576818 Retweet on Twitter 2069778787244576818 86 Like on Twitter 2069778787244576818 574 X 2069778787244576818
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
politicalkida Political Kida @politicalkida ·
25 Jun

In 2018, CPI(M) supporter Debu Das and his wife were burnt alive by TMC goons.

The administration tried to pass it off as a short circuit, while the victims' son was made to wait for hours at police station instead of receiving justice.

Yesterday, the BJP govt arrested 10 TMC

Reply on Twitter 2070048322292007208 Retweet on Twitter 2070048322292007208 613 Like on Twitter 2070048322292007208 1867 X 2070048322292007208
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
rshivshankar Rahul Shivshankar @rshivshankar ·
25 Jun

"THIS ISN'T AN ASIAN PROBLEM IT IS A PAK PROBLEM. IT'S A MISNOMER TO LABEL THEM "ASIAN GROOMING GANGS".
Rupert Lowe, British MP, Founder of UK's fastest growing party "RESTORE BRITAIN" and the man behind the report that exposed the UK's "Pak Rape Gangs" makes a clear and

Reply on Twitter 2069965275093746169 Retweet on Twitter 2069965275093746169 613 Like on Twitter 2069965275093746169 1582 X 2069965275093746169
Load More

Recent Posts

  • Petition Prayers Are Not Final Outcomes – Understanding Legal Strategy Before Making Decisions June 27, 2026
  • RS Tamilvendan Vs The Secretary and Ors on 21 May 2026 June 25, 2026
  • Checklist Before Filing Quashing Petition – Complete Practical Guide June 25, 2026
  • Affidavit of Cooperation with Investigation – Format, Legal Requirements & Sample Draft June 25, 2026
  • Vijay R. Nair Vs Lijitha on 12 Jun 2026 June 24, 2026

Most Read Posts

  • Reply to Section 41A CrPC Notice – Format with Legal Explanation (4,956 views)
  • Anu Aggarwal Vs Sushant Aggarwal on 20 Jan 2026 (3,499 views)
  • Umme Farva Vs State of U.P. and Anr on 14 Jan 2026 (3,387 views)
  • Charge Sheet and Final Report Explained (2,847 views)
  • Regular Bail Application Format (Section 437/439 CrPC) (2,219 views)
  • Neha Lal Vs Abhishek Kumar on 20 Jan 2026 (2,018 views)
  • Arrest Procedure in 498A cases after Arnesh Kumar (1,957 views)
  • Discharge Application Format in 498A Case – Draft, Procedure & Sample Template (1,795 views)
  • Can You Travel Abroad After an FIR Is Registered? – Legal Position Explained (1,722 views)
  • Atul Kumar Bajpai Vs State of UP and Anr on 17 Sep 2025 (1,558 views)

Tags

Reportable Judgement or Order (433)2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision (415)Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes (382)Landmark Case (381)1-Judge Bench Decision (362)Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to (293)Work-In-Progress Article (215)3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision (101)Sandeep Pamarati (92)Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty (80)Issued or Recommended Guidelines or Directions or Protocols to be followed (71)Perjury Under 340 CrPC (66)Absurd Or After Thought Or Baseless Or False Or General Or Inherently Improbable Or Improved Or UnSpecific Or Omnibus Or Vague Allegations (62)Reprimands or Setbacks to YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh (49)Summary Post (47)CrPC 482 - Quash (44)HM Act Sec 13 - Divorce Granted to Husband (42)Divorce Granted on Cruelty ground (42)Legal Terrorism (41)Not Authentic copy hence to be replaced (40)

Categories

Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification (753)Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments (328)High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (186)High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification (164)High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification (112)High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification (93)Legal Procedure (80)High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification (71)High Court of Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification (61)LLB Study Material (59)General Study Material (56)High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification (52)Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications (50)High Court of Kerala Judgment or Order or Notification (47)Prakasam DV Cases (46)Judicial Activism (for Public Benefit) (45)District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification (44)High Court of Madhya Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (38)High Court of Gujarat Judgment or Order or Notification (28)High Court of Calcutta Judgment or Order or Notification (27)

Recent Comments

  • eCourts India on Compromise-Based Quashing in Matrimonial Cases – Complete Legal Strategy
  • The Divorce Law Firm on Life Cycle Stages of a Divorce case
  • The Divorce Law Firm on Life Cycle Stages of a Divorce case
  • ShadesOfKnife on Sandeep Pamarati Vs Ungrateful Knife (IPC 498A Case)
  • KONURU VINAYKUMAR on Sandeep Pamarati Vs Ungrateful Knife (IPC 498A Case)

Archives of SoK

  • June 2026 (14)
  • May 2026 (24)
  • April 2026 (33)
  • March 2026 (42)
  • February 2026 (30)
  • January 2026 (21)
  • December 2025 (2)
  • November 2025 (3)
  • October 2025 (17)
  • September 2025 (12)
  • August 2025 (5)
  • July 2025 (10)
  • June 2025 (15)
  • May 2025 (3)
  • April 2025 (10)
  • March 2025 (7)
  • February 2025 (8)
  • January 2025 (1)
  • December 2024 (3)
  • November 2024 (4)
  • October 2024 (16)
  • September 2024 (15)
  • August 2024 (14)
  • July 2024 (11)
  • June 2024 (18)
  • May 2024 (13)
  • April 2024 (9)
  • March 2024 (23)
  • February 2024 (15)
  • January 2024 (11)
  • December 2023 (11)
  • November 2023 (9)
  • October 2023 (13)
  • September 2023 (12)
  • August 2023 (15)
  • July 2023 (17)
  • June 2023 (11)
  • May 2023 (6)
  • April 2023 (5)
  • March 2023 (10)
  • February 2023 (9)
  • January 2023 (12)
  • December 2022 (12)
  • November 2022 (8)
  • October 2022 (13)
  • September 2022 (17)
  • August 2022 (10)
  • July 2022 (21)
  • June 2022 (27)
  • 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 (28)
  • 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 (34)
  • November 2019 (4)
  • October 2019 (18)
  • September 2019 (57)
  • August 2019 (33)
  • July 2019 (12)
  • June 2019 (18)
  • 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 (97)
  • 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
  • Unitedmen Foundation a dedicated community forged with the mission to unite men facing legal challenges in marital disputes. 0
  • Vaastav Foundation The Social Reality 0
  • Vinayak my2centsworth – This blog is for honest law abiding men, married or planning to get married 0
  • Voice4india Indian Laws, Non-profits, Environment 0
  • Writing Law Writing Law by Ankur 0

RSS Cloudflare Status

  • Errors when uploading Custom Certificates June 26, 2026
    Jun 26, 15:00 UTC Resolved - This incident has been resolved. Jun 26, 12:33 UTC Investigating - Cloudflare is investigating 500/2000 errors when customers attempt to upload a new custom certificate. Custom certificates already in production remain unaffected and are operating normally.
    Cloudflare

RSS List of Spam Server IPs from Project Honeypot

  • 171.25.158.95 | SD June 26, 2026
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 226 | First: 2026-05-03 | Last: 2026-06-26
Owned and Operated by Advocate Sandeep Pamarati and Advocate Suprajaa Rajan
Proudly powered by WordPress
Theme: Flint by Star Verte LLC

Bad Behavior has blocked 2330 access attempts in the last 7 days.

pixel