Chidurala Shyamsubder Vs State of Telangana on 27 Aug 2018

I came across the following snippet of post on 23-May-2026.

Pulled out the above Order by the High Court of Telangana, with little difficulty.

Jivani Sahil Firoz Ali Vs State of Telangana and Anr on 04 May 2026

I went to the decision relied on by this case/judge in Para-3 and obtained this wonderful common Order with respect of FSS Act 2006 by the erstwhile Combined High Court of Andhra Pradesh. When I read through it, I visualized the stark similarities between FSS Act 2006 and Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 (amended in 1984 and 1986), which I intend to take full advantage in a future PIL, by making a comparison of appointment, duties, powers of a Food Safety Officer vis-a-vis that of the Dowry Prohibition Officer. There is possibility of getting State police off the offences under DP Act, just like APHC held in this Order (gainfully relying on various other High Court judgments)

Chidurala Shyamsubder Vs State of Telangana on 27 Aug 2018

The efforts to be invested in this direction connect to this page here.

Birendra Kumar Tiwari Vs Neetu Tiwari on 07 Dec 2022

Posted on May 27 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench at High Court of Chhattisgarh held as follows while denying maintenance to a major daughter, who refused to live with father.

From Para 5,

5. It is explicit from impugned order that respondent has attained the majority and also pursuing B.A. final year. As per Section 125 Cr.P.C. to get maintenance daughter has to make out a case that she is unable to maintain herself or not attained the majority but in the present case, no such averment has been made. So the respondent is not entitled to get maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. However, Section 20 (3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 recognize rights of maintenance to children and it is statutory obligation of Hindu to maintain his or her daughter, who is unmarried and is unable to maintain herself out of her own earning of other property.

This kind judge gave her legal advice through this judgment. Still have the tendency to think like an advocate!

From Paras 7 and 8,

7. Therefore, in view of the proposition held in Abhilasha (Supra) the application filed by the respondent under Section 125 Cr.P.C before the Family Court is not maintainable. Further, this Court reserves liberty in favour of the respondent/daughter to take recourse to Section 20 (3) of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, if so advised, for claiming any maintenance against her father.
8. Reserving the aforesaid liberty, this revision is allowed and the impugned order is hereby quashed.

Birendra Kumar Tiwari Vs Neetu Tiwari on 07 Dec 2022

Citations: [2022 Latest Caselaw 7369 Chatt],

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/32464509/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/639a08eae4e7915eb4d2599d

https://www.latestlaws.com/judgements/chattisgarh-high-court/2022/december/2022-latest-caselaw-7369-chatt/

Index of Maintenance Judgments u/s 144 BNSS is here.

Dinesh Kumar Vs Neeti and Ors on 4 Apr 2026 – Judgment Summary

Posted on April 24 by Suprajaa Rajan

In a significant ruling on interim maintenance, the Delhi High Court dealt with cross-petitions filed by both husband and wife challenging the quantum of maintenance awarded under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. While the husband argued that the amount was excessive, the wife contended that it was inadequate considering his actual financial capacity.

The dispute arose after the parties separated in 2016, with the wife seeking maintenance under both Section 125 of the CrPC (now Section 144 BNSS) and proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act. After evaluating the material on record, the High Court took a balanced approach. It neither accepted the husband’s minimal income claim nor the wife’s allegation of extremely high earnings, but instead assessed his income pragmatically.

“12. Thus, the responsibility of their day-to-day care, upbringing and education is being borne by the wife. Secondly, this Court notes that the husband has alleged that the wife is earning about ₹30,000/- per month by giving tuition. However, no document or material has been placed on record by him to substantiate this allegation. In the absence of any supporting material, such assertion cannot be accepted at this stage. Therefore, this Court does not find any infirmity in the finding of the learned Trial Court, as affirmed by the learned Appellate Court, that the income of the wife is to be treated as „Nil‟ for the purpose of deciding interim maintenance.”
“14. Thus, at this stage, while the allegation of the wife regarding the extremely high income of the husband remains unsubstantiated, the claim of the husband that he is earning only ₹12,000/- per month also requires to be examined cautiously in light of the overall facts and circumstances of the case.”
“17. In these circumstances, this Court finds no reason to disagree with the observations of the learned Appellate Court that the husband appears to have withheld material information regarding his actual income and financial status. The material placed on record therefore prima facie indicates that the husband has not made a full and candid disclosure of his financial position.”
“18. Considering the fact that the husband claims to be earning only ₹12,000/- per month, which is even below the minimum wages applicable in Delhi, this Court finds no ground to accept such a claim at this stage. “

Decision

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed both cross-petitions and upheld the Appellate Court’s order granting total interim maintenance of ₹13,000 per month to the wife and two minor children.

Furthermore, the Court clarified that:

The maintenance awarded under Section 125 CrPC (Section 144 BNSS) would be adjusted against the amount granted under the Domestic Violence Act.
The findings were purely interim in nature and subject to final adjudication after trial.
Importantly, the Court reiterated that suppression of income invites adverse inference, and courts may assess earning capacity even in the absence of full disclosure.

Thus, the judgment reinforces the principle that financial responsibility toward dependents cannot be avoided through incomplete or misleading disclosures.

Dinesh kumar Vs Neeti and Ors on 4 Apr 2026

Citation : 2026 DHC 2819

Other Sources :

Index of Maintenance judgements is here.

Key Contributor :
Mrs. Suprajaa Rajan B.Com., LL.B., LL.M.
+91-9606345150

Rani Bibi Vs Sk Nurullah and Ors on 8 Dec 2025 – Judgement Summary

Posted on April 8 by Suprajaa Rajan

In Rani Bibi vs Sk. Nurullah & Ors. (2026), the Calcutta High Court dealt with a crucial issue concerning territorial jurisdiction under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and the maintainability of a petition under Section 482 CrPC [Section 528 BNSS].

The petitioner-wife, after being allegedly subjected to cruelty and dowry harassment, shifted to a rented accommodation in Kolkata and initiated proceedings under Section 12 of the DV Act. While the Magistrate upheld jurisdiction, the appellate court reversed the decision, directing return of the application for lack of territorial jurisdiction.

“25. Since in the instant case, the question which has been dealt herein by the court below as to the maintainability of the Application under section 12 of the D.V. Act before the said Trial court is on the ground of territoriality principle of jurisdiction, I am of the firm view that the order impugned attracts the second part of section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and therefore instant application under section 482 of the Code against the impugned order is maintainable.”
“29. In the light of said judgment the temporary residence as envisaged under the Act is such residence where an aggrieved person compelled to take shelter in view of domestic violence perpetrated on her or she either been turned out of the matrimonial home or has to leave the matrimonial home. Of course the temporary residence does not include residence in a lodge or hotel or an inn or residence at a place only for the purpose of filing a domestic violence case, but the temporary residence must also be a continuing residence from the date of acquiring residence till the Application under section 12 disposed of and it must not be a fleeing residence where a woman comes only for the purpose of contesting the case and otherwise does not reside there.”
“30. In the instant case the document which has been relied by the petitioner and also considering the fact that the petitioner had received court notices from the Taltala Address it does not indicate that it is not her continuing residence nor there is anything to suggest that the petitioner comes to that residence only for the purpose of contesting the said cases and otherwise does not reside therein.”
“34. “Economic abuse” interalia includes deprivation of financial or economic resources to which an aggrieved person is entitled to under the law or custom and such claim is a continuing one which continues from day to day. It is settled law that continuity of joint residence in a shared house hold or domestic relationship inter se is not a sine qua non for the perpetration of domestic violence to an aggrieved person in the form “economic abuse” under the Act.”

Decision

The Court, after detailed analysis, thus, held that:

A woman can initiate DV proceedings where she temporarily resides.
Temporary residence must be genuine and not merely a “fleeting” arrangement.
Economic abuse constitutes a continuing cause of action, thereby conferring jurisdiction.

Therefore, the High Court set aside the appellate court’s order and restored the Magistrate’s decision.

Rani Bibi Vs Sk Nurullah and Ors on 8 Dec 2025

Citation : 2026:CHC-AS:289

Other Sources :

Index of Domestic Violence judgements is here.

Related Legal Concepts

Inherent powers of High Court
Temporary vs Permanent Residence
Economic Abuse under DV Act
Maintainability of Criminal Revision
Abuse of Process of Law

Key Contributor :
Mrs. Suprajaa Rajan B.Com., LL.B., LL.M.
+91-9606345150

Vinod Kumar Vs Seema Devi and Anr on 16 Mar 2026 – Judgement Summary

Posted on April 4 by Suprajaa Rajan

In Vinod Kumar Vs Seema Devi and Anr, the Delhi High Court examined whether the maintenance awarded by the Family Court under Section 125 CrPC (now Section 144 BNSS) required interference.

The petitioner (husband) challenged the maintenance granted to his wife and daughter, arguing that:

The wife lived separately without justification
She had rental income
His own income was wrongly assessed

However, the Court found that the wife had consistently alleged cruelty, which justified her separate residence. Moreover, the Court emphasized that an able-bodied husband cannot evade maintenance liability by understating income or taking voluntary retirement.

After analysing income, evidence, and legal principles, the Court upheld the Family Court’s order and dismissed the revision petition.

“9. It is well settled that the object of granting maintenance is to prevent vagrancy by compelling those who can provide support to those who are unable to support themselves and who have a moral claim to support.”

“10. Section 125 of the CrPC elucidates conditions under which a wife may be deemed ineligible for maintenance. These conditions include instances where the wife is engaged in adulterous activities, where she, without any justifiable cause, refuse to cohabit with her husband, or where both parties have agreed to live apart through mutual consent. These provisions delineate clear legal parameters that govern the entitlement or disentitlement of maintenance to ensure that the support is granted only under circumstances that warrant such financial assistance.”

“13. Merely because Respondent No.1 remained in possession of the matrimonial house, the same does not signify that the petitioner did not neglect to maintain the respondents. Even if the contention of the petitioner is taken as correct, the case of the respondents is not helmed on Respondent No.1 leaving the company of the petitioner due to neglect, so as to disentitle her from grant of maintenance. Rather, Respondent No.1 has made categorical allegations of cruelty, which is sufficient to satisfy the threshold of balance of probabilities.”
“18. It appears to be implausible that the petitioner would have taken retirement from his stable well-paying job without securing any other mode of income. As it is a normal tendency of the parties to not disclose their true income in matrimonial disputes, the Courts are permitted to make some guess work and arrive at a figure that a party may reasonably be earning.”
“19. The petitioner is a well- bodied man capable of earning, he cannot shirk his sacrosanct duty to financially support his wife and children by claiming that he has no income after retirement apart from his pension. The petitioner is thus obliged to earn and maintain his family, and the purported lower MSP prices for his land would thus not help his case.”

Decision

The Delhi High Court held that:

The maintenance awarded by the Family Court was justified and reasonable
The wife’s allegations of cruelty justified her separate residence
The husband’s claim of low income was not credible

Accordingly:

The Court refused to interfere with the maintenance order
The revision petition was dismissed
Maintenance (₹10,000 per month each after majority, with 10% increase every two years) was upheld

Vinod Kumar Vs Seema Devi and Anr on 16 Mar 2026

Citation :

Other Sources :

Index of Maintenance Judgements under Sec 125 CrPC is here.

Related Legal Concepts

Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC (Section 144 BNSS)
Cruelty as Ground for Separate Residence
Assessment of Income in Maintenance Cases
Doctrine of Social Justice in Family Law
Adverse Inference for Non-Disclosure of Income

Key Contributor :
Mrs. Suprajaa Rajan B.Com., LL.B., LL.M.
+91-9606345150

Ankit Saha Vs State of UP and Anr on 03 Dec 2025

Posted on April 3 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Allahabad bench of Allahabad High Court held as follows on two aspects,

From Paras 9 to 11, (Failed to prove that Wife was ‘unable to maintain herself‘)

9. From the perusal of Section 125 Cr.P.C., it is clear that maintenance can be awarded to the wife, when she is unable to maintain herself.
10. A perusal of the paragraph 23 of the impugned judgment which is at internal page no. 12 of the impugned indicates that in the affidavit filed before the trial court, the opposite party no. 2 herself admitted that she is a Post-Graduate, Web Designer by qualification, and is working as a Senior Sales Coordinator in Keiath Telecom Pvt. Ltd., getting salary of Rs. 34,000/- per month but in her cross-examination she has further admitted that she is earning of Rs. 36,000/- per month and such amount, for a wife who has no other liability, cannot be said to be meagre, whereas the revisionist has the responsibility of maintaining his aged parents and other social obligations.
11. Thus, this Court is of the view that as per the provision of Section 125(1) (a), the opposite party no. 2 is not entitled to get any maintenance from her husband/revisionist as she is an earning lady and able to maintain herself.

From Paras 12 to 15,

12. On the second issue, learned counsel for the revisionist has alleged that she did not came before the trial court with clean hands. A perusal of the affidavit filed by the opposite party no.2 at page no. 67-70 clearly reflects that she has not mentioned that she is an earning lady as well as a perusal of application under Section 125 Cr. P.C. paper no. 33 to 38 at paragraph no. 16 reflects that she has claimed herself as an illiterate and unemployed woman but when the document filed by the revisionist was shown to her before the trial court, she has admitted her aforesaid income during her cross-examination. Thus, it is clear that she did not came before the trial court with clean hands.
13. It is settled law that when a person approaches a Court, he should approach the Court not only with clean hands but also with clean mind, clean heart and clean objective. It is a law of nature that one should not be enriched by the loss or injury to another. The judicial process should never become an instrument of appreciation or abuse or a means in the process of the Court to subvert justice. No litigant has a right to unlimited drought on the Court time and public money in order to get his affairs settled in the manner he wishes. Easy, access to justice should not be misused as a licence to file misconceived and frivolous petitions. If a petitioner is guilty of suppression of very important fact his case cannot be considered on merits. Thus, a litigant is bound to make “full and true disclosure of facts”.
14. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Rekha Sharad Ushir Vs. Saptashrungi Mahila Nagari Sahkari Patsansta Ltd. reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC641, para no. 11 is reproduced herein below:
“11. It is settled law that a litigant who, while filing proceedings in the court, suppresses material facts or makes a false statement, cannot seek justice from the court. The facts suppressed must be material and relevant to the controversy, which may have a bearing on the decision making. Cases of those litigants who have no regard for the truth and those who indulge in suppressing material facts need to be thrown out of the court.”
15. In view of the said judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court, the opposite party no. 2 does not deserve any sympathy and is not entitled to receive maintenance from the revisionist.

Ankit Saha Vs State of UP and Anr on 03 Dec 2025

Index of Maintenance Judgements under Section 144 BNSS here.

Mariya Zafar and Anr Vs State of UP and Anr on 31 Mar 2026

Posted on April 3 by Suprajaa Rajan

In Mariya Zafar v. State of U.P., the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench) addressed whether a Magistrate can reject an application seeking production of financial documents under Section 91 CrPC (now Section 94 BNSS) in a domestic violence proceeding.

The petitioner-wife alleged domestic violence, dowry harassment, and financial suppression by her husband. She sought disclosure of his bank accounts, Income Tax Returns (ITRs), and GST records to determine his actual income for maintenance proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act.

However, the trial court rejected her application, stating that concealment could instead be dealt with under Section 340 CrPC (now Section 379 BNSS). Challenging this, the petitioner approached the High Court.

The High Court emphasized compliance with the Supreme Court’s ruling in Rajnesh v. Neha, which mandates full financial disclosure in maintenance matters. After examining the husband’s ITRs (produced in sealed cover), the Court found that he had misrepresented his occupation and income. Consequently, the High Court set aside the Magistrate’s order and directed reconsideration.

“11.“…the court below has observed that there is no need to summon the Income Tax Returns of opposite party No. 2 to ascertain the income and the reason has been recorded that in case the opposite party is concealing the material fact, then he will be prosecuted under Section 340 Cr.P.C.”
“14….the opposite party No. 3 is directed to bring the income tax return of the last two years filed by the opposite party No. 2…”
“15.ITRs of opp. party No. 2… indicate that the opposite party No. 2 is an Architect… in the AY 2023-24 his total income was Rs. 4,85,290.00 and in the AY 2024-25 his income was Rs. 5,07,680.00.”
“17. ..the order dated 19-01-2026… is hereby set aside and the said court is directed to take fresh decision in the matter in the light of judgment… within 6 weeks…”

Decision

The Allahabad High Court:

Set aside the Magistrate’s order dated 19.01.2026.
Directed the trial court to reconsider the application under Section 91 CrPC (Section 94 BNSS) in light of Rajnesh v. Neha.
Ordered that the matter be decided within 6 weeks.
Allowed the petitioner access to the respondent’s ITRs.
Emphasised the importance of truthful financial disclosure in maintenance proceedings.

Mariya Zafar and Anr Vs State of UP and Anr on 31 Mar 2026

Citation :

Other Sources :

Index of Domestic Violence judgments is here.

Related Legal Concepts

Explore related stages and concepts in criminal procedure:

Financial Disclosure in Maintenance Proceedings
Summoning of Documents
Burden of Proof
Judicial Duty to Ensure Fair Maintenance Adjudication
Enforcement of Supreme Court Guidelines (Rajnesh v. Neha)

Key Contributor :

Mrs. Suprajaa Rajan B.Com., LL.B., LL.M.

+91-9606345150

Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta and Ors Vs State of Maharashtra on 11 Nov 2010 – Judgement Summary

Posted on April 1 by Suprajaa Rajan

In Dr. Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra, the Supreme Court examined whether the accused could be convicted for abetment of suicide and cruelty under Sections 306 and 498A IPC.

The Supreme Court carefully re-evaluated the evidence and found that the prosecution relied heavily on contradictory and improved witness statements. Moreover, the Court noted that the deceased suffered from serious mental health issues, including depression and psychosis, which could independently explain the suicide.

Therefore, the Court held that the High Court had wrongly interfered with the acquittal without sufficient justification. Consequently, the Supreme Court restored the Trial Court’s acquittal, reinforcing the principles of burden of proof, presumption of innocence, and cautious appellate review.

“15. Where the omission(s) amount to a contradiction, creating a serious doubt about the truthfulness of a witness and other witness also make material improvements before the court in order to make the evidence acceptable, it cannot be safe to rely upon such evidence.”
“17. In case, the complainant in the FIR or the witness in his statement under section 161 Cr.P.C., has not disclosed certain facts but meets the prosecution case first time before the court, such version lacks credence and is liable to be discarded.”
“21. The omissions which amount to contradictions in material particulars i.e. go to the root of the case/materially affect the trial or core of the prosecution’s case, render the testimony of the witness liable to be discredited.”
“23. Every accused is presumed to be innocent unless his guilt is proved. The presumption of innocence is a human right. Subject to the statutory exceptions, the said principle forms the basis of criminal jurisprudence in India. The nature of the offence, its seriousness and gravity has to be taken into consideration.”

Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta Vs State of Maharashtra on 11 Nov 2010

Citation :

Other Sources :

Index of 498A IPC Judgements here.

Related Legal Concepts

Explore related stages and concepts in criminal procedure:

Abetment of Suicide
Cruelty by Husband or Relatives
Appeal Against Acquittal
Appreciation of Evidence & Material Contradictions
Burden of Proof & Presumption of Innocence

Key Contributor :

Mrs. Suprajaa Rajan B.Com., LL.B., LL.M.

+91-9606345150

Asha G Vs State of Karnataka on 6 Jan 2026 – Judgement Summary

Posted on April 1 by Suprajaa Rajan

498A IPC: Karnataka High Court Quashes Case Against Neighbour Under CrPC 482 (BNSS 528)

In Asha G Vs State of Karnataka, the High Court of Karnataka addressed a crucial legal issue regarding the misuse of Section 498A IPC in matrimonial disputes.

The petitioner, who was merely a neighbour of the complainant, sought quashing of criminal proceedings under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) (now BNSS Section 528). The allegations against her were limited to instigating the husband, without any direct involvement in matrimonial cruelty or dowry harassment.

After examining the complaint and charge sheet, the Court observed that:

The petitioner was not a relative of the husband.
Allegations were vague and omnibus, lacking specific acts.
Inclusion of the petitioner amounted to misuse of criminal law.

Consequently, the Court held that continuing proceedings against the neighbour would be an abuse of process of law, and therefore quashed the case against her.

“The name of this petitioner is nowhere found except contending that she has instigated the husband… otherwise the petitioner would not fit into the definition of family as is obtaining under Section 498A of the IPC.”

“Neighbours of the husband’s family are not relatives of the husband and cannot be implicated for offences under Section 498A of the IPC.”
“Permitting further proceedings against this petitioner would become an abuse of the process of the law and result in miscarriage of justice.”

Asha G Vs State of Karnataka on 6 Jan 2026

Index of Quash Judgments is here.

Related Legal Concepts

Quashing of FIR
Relative under Section 498A IPC
Abuse of Process of Law
False Implication in Matrimonial Disputes
Requirement of Specific Allegations in FIR/Charge Sheet

Key Contributor :

Mrs. Suprajaa Rajan B.Com., LL.B., LL.M.

+91-9606345150

Vikaramjeet Rana Vs The State of NCT of Delhi and Anr on 6 Nov 2025 – Judgment Summary

Posted on March 24 by Suprajaa Rajan

The Delhi High Court held that interim rent maintenance under the DV Act cannot continue after the wife acquires her own residence.

The Court observed that the purpose of rent is to provide immediate shelter. Once the wife purchases a house, that need ends. Therefore, continuation of rent becomes unjust enrichment.Further, the Court recognised that change in circumstances under Section 25 DV Act (now read with BNSS framework) permits modification of earlier orders.

Accordingly, the Court set aside the order allowing adjustment of rent towards EMI payments.

The following paragraphs form the core reasoning of the decision:

“26. It needs no reiteration that the Domestic Violence Act had been enacted with the intention of providing immediate relief and support to a wife who has been subjected to domestic violence. The legislative intent behind the D.V. Act is to provide succour to women who are financially vulnerable and subjected to domestic violence. However, the said provision cannot be stretched to benefit a woman who is financially independent and capable of maintaining herself.”
“29. No doubt, the Interim Order directed payment of Rent of Rs.20,000/- per month. However, here is a situation when the Petitioner is claiming change of circumstances and thus, modification of this Order in terms of Section 25(2) D.V. Act which provides that in case of change of circumstances the Order may be recalled, modified or altered.”
“30. In the present case, indeed there is a change in circumstance as a flat has been admittedly acquired by Respondent No.2. The question is whether she should now continue to get Rs.20,000/- per month towards Rent.”
“31. As already noted, the purpose of granting maintenance under the D.V. Act was to provide the Respondent with alternate accommodation. However, she having acquired a flat in Hauz Khas, Delhi, she cannot be held to be in need of immediate shelter. Therefore, it would not be appropriate, fair, or just to direct that the maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month be continued, as has been rightly argued by the Petitioner. Once a flat has been acquired by the Respondent, there remains no justification to direct continuation of payment of Rs.20,000/- per month by the Petitioner.”
“32. The very substratum upon which the maintenance was granted, has ceased to exist with the acquisition of the property. To permit the continuation of such payment, would be to allow the Respondent undue benefit, which is contrary to the purpose of interim relief under the D.V. Act.”

Decision

The Court thus allowed the revision petition. It set aside the order that permitted rent adjustment towards EMI payments. It held that rent maintenance cannot continue after property acquisition.

The Court directed that payment of ₹20,000 per month shall stop from May 2024.

Vikaramjeet Rana Vs The State of NCT of Delhi and Anr on 6 Nov 2025

Index of Maintenance Judgments under Hindu Marriage Act is here.

Citation : 2025:DHC:9719

Other Sources :

Related Legal Concepts

Interim Maintenance under DV act
Change in circumstances in maintenance law
Rent Vs EMI-legal distinction
Purpose of Interim Relief in DV Act

Key Contributor :

Mrs. Suprajaa Rajan B.Com., LL.B., LL.M.

+91-9606345150

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: 1-Judge Bench Decision

Chidurala Shyamsubder Vs State of Telangana on 27 Aug 2018

Birendra Kumar Tiwari Vs Neetu Tiwari on 07 Dec 2022

Dinesh Kumar Vs Neeti and Ors on 4 Apr 2026 – Judgment Summary

Decision

Rani Bibi Vs Sk Nurullah and Ors on 8 Dec 2025 – Judgement Summary

Decision

Related Legal Concepts

Vinod Kumar Vs Seema Devi and Anr on 16 Mar 2026 – Judgement Summary

Decision

Related Legal Concepts

Ankit Saha Vs State of UP and Anr on 03 Dec 2025

Mariya Zafar and Anr Vs State of UP and Anr on 31 Mar 2026

Decision

Related Legal Concepts

Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta and Ors Vs State of Maharashtra on 11 Nov 2010 – Judgement Summary

Related Legal Concepts

Asha G Vs State of Karnataka on 6 Jan 2026 – Judgement Summary

498A IPC: Karnataka High Court Quashes Case Against Neighbour Under CrPC 482 (BNSS 528)

Related Legal Concepts

Vikaramjeet Rana Vs The State of NCT of Delhi and Anr on 6 Nov 2025 – Judgment Summary

Decision

Related Legal Concepts