M.Chinna Karuppasamy Vs Kanimozhi on 16 Jul 2015

Posted on May 11, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Madras High Court at Madurai Bench, held as follows,

From Paras 22 and 23,

22. In view of Section 41 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, if once the decree for divorce is granted on the ground of adultery, such finding is relevant for deciding the issue of adultery in the present case. This Court cannot sit in an appeal over the said decree for divorce granted by the Civil court, when the same has not been challenged by the aggrieved party. There can be no difference between a decree on contest and an ex-parte decree, since, like a decree on contest, an ex-parte decree is also a decree passed on proof of the claim made by means of sufficient evidence. It is well known that though simply because the defendant has remained ex-parte, the Court shall not grant decree, unless the claim made in the plaint is proved, by means of evidence either oral or documentary or both. In the case on hand, therefore, there can be no doubt that the decree for divorce granted by the Civil court in favour of the petitioner is sufficient proof that the respondent was living in adultery. When once such a decree is in force, it is not possible for this Court to take a different view contrary to the decree granted by the Civil court. Therefore, I hold that besides, oral evidence let in, in this case, the decree granted by the Family Court clearly goes to prove that the respondent is living in adultery and thus, she suffers from the disqualification to claim maintenance from the petitioner.
23. In view of the foregoing discussion, I hold that the learned Principal Sessions Judge was not right in reversing the order of the Trial Court and therefore, the order of the learned Principal Sessions Judge impugned in this Criminal Revision Case is liable to be set aside.

M.Chinna Karuppasamy Vs Kanimozhi on 16 Jul 2015

Index of Maintenance judgements u/s 125 CrPC is here.

Shrikrishna Vs Sunita Bai on 02 May 2024

Posted on May 11, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of MP High Court at Indore bench held as follows,

From Para 13,

13. From the record, it is evident that learned JMFC has passed the order by dismissing the application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. on the ground that
since the respondent did not get divorce from her earlier husband and without getting divorce she entered into second marriage. Hence, she cannot be
ascertained as a legally wedded wife of the petitioner and she is not entitled for the claim of maintenance.

From Paras 15-18,

15. It is unearthed from the aforesaid provision that an illegitimate child is entitled to get maintenance but an illegitimate wife is not entitled to get maintenance. The intention of legislature is obvious that maintenance can only be granted in favour of legally wedded wife. On this issue the law laid down by the full Bench in the case of Savitaben Somabhai Bhatia vs. State of Gujarat and Ors. reported as 2005 Lawsuit (SC) 466, is also poignant to be pointed out here:
“There may be substance in the plea of learned counsel for the appellant that law operates harshly against the woman who unwittingly gets into relationship with a married man and Section 125 of the Code does not give protection to such woman. This may be an inadequacy in law, which only the legislature can undo. But as the position in law stands presently there is no escape from the conclusion that the expression ‘wife’ as per Section 125 of the Code refers to only legally married wife.“
16. In view of aforesaid settled propositions and provisions of law, it is crystal clear that the wife should be a “legally wedded wife” for claiming maintenance from her husband. A woman, having solemnized second marriage to another person is only entitled to get maintenance from that person, when the first marriage has been declared either null and void or she has obtained a divorce decree from her first husband. The aforesaid view has recently been endorsed by this Court in the cases of Sangeeta Rathore W/o Naresh Rathore Vs. Naresh Rathore, 2023 LawSuit (MP) 470 and Kewal Singh Vs. Durgabai, 2024 LawSuit (MP) 179.
17. In conspectus of the aforesaid settled proposition, in this petition filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C., the term “wife” under Section 125 Cr.P.C. envisages a situation wherein she, having a living spouse, cannot seek maintenance from her second husband without getting divorce from her earlier husband. Nevertheless, this Court finds it unfortunate that many women, specially those belonging to the poorer strata of society, are routinely exploited in this manner, and that legal loopholes allow the offending parties to slip away unscathed and unquestioned. In spite of the social justice factor embedded in Section 125 Cr.P.C., the objective of the provision is frustrated as it fails to arrest the exploitation which it seeks to curb. In the instant case, while the Court sympathizes with the position of the Respondent, it is constrained to deny her maintenance as per the law of the land which stands as of today. However, the Respondent has the liberty to avail other remedies that may be better suited to the facts and circumstances of this case, such as seeking of compensation under Section 22 of the D.V. Act.
18. In the result thereof, the order of the learned Revisional Court awarding the maintenance to the respondent is found against the law and is also suffering from infirmity and illegality. Accordingly, the impugned order of the learned Revisional Court is set aside and the order of learned trial Court dated 06.09.2021 is hereby affirmed.

Shrikrishna Vs Sunita Bai on 02 May 2024

Index of Maintenance cases u/s 125 CrPC is here.

K Sreekanth Naik Vs P Nalini and Anr on 25 Apr 2024

Posted on May 3, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court held that an Order for Maintenance passed without adhering to the guidelines issued by Apex Court in Rajnesh Vs Neha is liable to be set aside.

From Para 5,

5. During the hearing, it is brought to the notice of the Court that both parties have not complied with the directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court enunciated in the judgment of Rajnesh V. Neha & Anr.,1 concerning the filing of affidavits disclosing the assets and liabilities. Considering the submissions made, I have gone through the observations in Rajnesh V. Neha (cited supra) case. The said judgment has brought revolutionary change in the procedure to be followed by the Courts in dealing with the applications filed under Chapter IX of the Cr.P.C. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has issued comprehensive procedural and normative directions streamlining the maintenance laws, inter alia, directing that the parties in a maintenance application have to file affidavits of disclosure of their assets and liabilities, which must be considered by Courts while deciding the application. It is also held that, in case of a dispute on the declaration made in the affidavits of disclosure, the aggrieved person can seek leave of the Court to serve interrogatories on the opposite side and seek production of relevant documents as provided under Order 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and in case a false statement or misrepresentation is made, the Court can initiate proceedings under section 340 of the Cr.P.C., or for Contempt of Court.

From Paras 7-14,

7. The aforesaid Judgment in the case of Rajnesh (cited supra) has been recently reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Aditi alias Mithi V. Jitesh Sharma 2 and expressing anguish over noncompliance/ improper compliance of the directions laid down in case of Rajnesh (supra) and directed re-circulation of the judgment for compliance thereof.
8. It is acknowledged that both parties have failed to submit the affidavits disclosing their assets and liabilities. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has relied on the decision of High Court of Patna in between Gitanjali Devi @ Gitanjali Kumari V. State of Bihar and another3, wherein, it is observed that the impugned order of granting maintenance amount is liable to be set aside for the reason that it has not followed the procedure prescribed by the Hon’ble Apex Court.
9. By following the principles laid down in the Aditi alias Mithi’s case cited supra, the High Court of Madras in Balram Dixit V. Smt. Kiran Dixit and another (Criminal Revision No.1255 of 2023, dated 17.01.2024) also set aside the maintenance awarded by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court,Gwalior and further directed the both parties to submit fresh affidavits of disclosure of assets and liabilities with complete particulars in compliance with the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down in the case of Rajnesh’s case cited supra.
10. Learned counsels representing both sides submit that because of lack of proper instructions, both parties could not comply with the directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court and at present, they are ready to comply with the observations made in the judgments referred to supra, by filing the affidavits and both parties submits that the Respondent-husband is paying interim maintenance amount @ Rs.8,000/- per month vide orders dated 26.09.2019 in Crl.M.P.No.39 of 2019 in F.C.O.P.No.183 of 2018 and he is ready to pay such maintenance amount during the pendency of FCOPs and after its restoration.
11. In view of the same, this Court refrains from delving into the merits of the case at this juncture, as the impugned order passed in F.C.O.P.No.183 of 2018 is liable to be set aside for the reason that it has not followed the procedures prescribed by the Hon’ble Apex Court.
12. The impugned order passed in F.C.O.P.No.183 of 2018, is accordingly, set aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned Judge, Family Court – cum – VII Additional District Judge, Ananthapuramu for fresh consideration and by following the procedures which are laid down in the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
13. This Court further directs the both parties to submit affidavits disclosing their assets and liabilities, giving complete particulars, in accordance with the directives of the Hon’ble Apex Court as laid down in the case of Rajnesh (supra) before the Family Court. The Family Court must ensure strict adherence to these guidelines. If any of the affidavits are found to be lacking in necessary particulars, the learned Judge shall direct to produce the relevant information from the respective party.
14. The Family Court shall dispose of the F.C.O.P.No.183 of 2018 afresh after giving reasonable opportunity to both parties to let in further evidence, if any. In the meantime, the Respondent-husband is directed to pay maintenance amount of Rs.8,000/- per month to the Petitioner-wife till the disposal of the FCOP. Both parties are directed to bear their own costs.

K Sreekanth Naik Vs P Nalini and Anr on 25 Apr 2024

Disclaimer: This is a case that I handled myself for the husband. This is my first reportable judgment.

Citations: [2024 Latest Caselaw 3581 AP]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/7473550/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/671c878cafb795648bb5985d

https://mynation.net/docs/1098-2023/

https://latestlaws.com/judgements/andhra-high-court/2024/april/2024-latest-caselaw-3581-ap

Index of Maintenance cases under section 125 CrPC is here.

Jelakara Chandra Sekhar Vs Nil on 16 Jun 2022

Posted on April 29, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court held that, a divorce petition is maintainable within 1 year from date of marriage, if there are Pleadings about Exceptional Hardship.

From Paras 16 and 17,

16. Applying the above stated legal position to the facts of the case on hand, this Court finds merit in the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The statement of the petitioners on oath that they are living separately since 3 days after the marriage, that the same was not consummated and that they had no mental stress in arriving at a conclusion to separate and on the contrary, continuing their relationship causes mental trauma and agony are the factors which weigh to exercise discretion in their favour for waiving the period of one year and the case on hand fall in the category of exceptional hardship as continuance of marriage would be more traumatic than dissolution of the same.
17. Further, the learned Trial Judge instead of examining the specific case of the petitioners herein with reference to the averments made in the affidavit in I.A.No.20 of 2022, based its Order on Savanam Giridhar Reddy‟s case referred to supra arising in a different fact situation and the reasoning in the decisions relied on by the learned counsel aptly applies to the instant case.

Jelakara Chandra Sekhar Vs Nil on 16 Jun 2022

Index of Divorce Matters here.

Layak Singh Vs Ekta Kumari on 21 Mar 2024

Posted on April 29, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of Allahabad High Court held that, a divorce petition is maintainable within 1 year from date of marriage, if there are Pleadings about Exceptional Hardship.

From Para 19, 20 and 21,

19. Where there is a chance of reconciliation, however slight, the cooling period of six months from the date of filing of the divorce petition should be enforced. However, if there is no possibility of reconciliation, it would be meaningless to prolong the agony of the parties to the marriage. Thus, if the marriage has broken down irretrievably, the spouses have been living apart for a long time, but not been able to reconcile their differences and have mutually decided to part, it is better to end the marriage, to enable both the spouses to move on with the life.
20. In the present case, the petitioner (husband) is aged about 34years and the opposite party (wife) is aged about 32 years. They got married on 29.06.2020 and are living separately since 28.10.2020. It is the case of the parties that every effort to resolve their difference failed despite best efforts being made by their family members and other persons of the society. It is further admitted that since both the parties failed to reconcile their dispute they agreed for divorce by mutual consent and entered into a settlement according to which the husband had to pay a sum of Rs. 6,00,000/- to the wife. In the application which was jointly made by both the parties for waiving of the cooling period, it was stated that the husband was in lookout for a job outside of State of Uttar Pradesh and because of pendency of this proceeding, he was not able to join his new job and further the wife also wanted to restart her life after the divorce. In this case marriage was a non starter. Admittedly, the parties lived together only for few months. After which they have separated on account of irreconcilable differences. It is jointly stated by the parties that the efforts at reconciliation have failed. The parties are unwilling to live together as husband and wife.Even after over three years of separation, the parties still wants to go ahead with divorce. As the parties are living separately for more than three years soon after their marriage and they have entered into a compromise to settle their dispute amicably and has agreed for divorce, specially considering the age of the parties, no useful purpose would be served by making the parties wait except to prolong their agony rather it will be useful that both the parties may be given a chance to restart their life afresh after the divorce. It is also admitted, in the present case, that there are no issues out of the wedlock of the parties.
21. The order passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Agra is not consistent with the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Amardeep Singh v. Harveen Kaur (Supra) and Amit Kumar v.Suman Beniwal (Supra).

Layak Singh Vs Ekta Kumari on 21 Mar 2024

Index of Divorce Matters here.

Dandamudi Phani Krishna Vs Boyapati Lakshmi Aparna on 22 Mar 2024

Posted on April 29, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of Telangana High Court held that, a divorce petition is maintainable within 1 year from date of marriage, if there are Pleadings about Exceptional Hardship.

From Para 5,

5. The petitioners have claimed that the Court below erred in dismissing their application and failed to understand the hardship faced by the petitioners that is the personal health issues and impotency, which they had explicitly stated. Their petition under Section 14(1) of H.M. Act was dismissed mechanically, without appropriate examination of the content. They have also pleaded that the Court below dismissed their petition without considering their arguments and the precedents they cited, thus exceeding the scope of the matter.

From Para 7,

7. The petitioner No.2 is forty (40) years old and who appeared personally through video conferencing submitted that she has received a marriage proposal which is at the final stage of settlement. However, things cannot materialise unless the divorce is obtained so far as the present marriage is concerned. She wishes to remarry due to biological complications that can occur with pregnancies at her age, such as a higher risk of miscarriage and potential complications during delivery.The delay in the divorce process is causing her a great deal of anxiety, as she is keenly aware that time is not on her side which is an immediate resolution to her request for divorce.

From Para 15,

15. In the present case the marriage between the petitioners was solemnized on 01.06.2023 and they commenced their matrimonial life together. However, their marital journey was short-lived as they continued their marital life for two (02) months. During this brief period, their relationship was beset by differences that arose primarily due to health problems and impotency. These issues created a barrier in their relationship and led to the consensual decision of dissolving their marital bond. The primary reason that necessitated the divorce is the couple’s incapacity to continue their marital relationship, which has been severely affected by health problems and impotency. Both parties are unequivocally in agreement about their decision to divorce, and there seems to be no possibility of reconciliation. Their mutual consent for divorce underscores the irreparable breakdown of their marriage. Further adding to the complexity of the situation is the fact that the petitioner No.2, who is forty (40) years old, has received marriage proposals and is keen on remarrying. Her decision is fuelled by the potential biological complications associated with pregnancies at her age. She is acutely aware of the higher risks of miscarriage and potential complications during delivery that can occur with pregnancies at her age. Therefore, she wishes to remarry as soon as possible to mitigate these risks at the earliest. Since they have already completed their ten (10) months waiting period and just about two (02) months time is left to complete the waiting period. Hence, they already waited for the substantial part of the statutory waiting period.

Dandamudi Phani Krishna Vs Boyapati Lakshmi Aparna on 22 Mar 2024

Index of Divorce Matters here.

Sushil Daddimani and Anr Vs Nil on 27 Mar 2024

Posted on April 28, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of Karnataka High Court (at Dharwad) held that, a divorce petition is maintainable within 1 year from date of marriage, if there are Pleadings about Exceptional Hardship.

From Para 6 (Issue Framed)

6. From above, only question that would arise for consideration is ‘whether petitioners have made out a case of exceptional hardship and whether trial Court was justified in rejecting I.A.no.I?’

From Paras 7 and 8 (Pleadings about Exceptional Hardship)

7. Perusal of petition at Annexure-A would indicate that there are specific pleading about petitioner no.2 being forged into marriage and due to same, she had withdrawn from marital obligations. They have also stated that marriage having not been consummated and parties being residing separately and failure of efforts for reconciliation by family members and elders. It is also seen that parties have intended to move on with their lives after obtaining divorce.
8. While passing impugned order, only reason assigned by trial Court is that there are no averments to make out a case of exceptional hardship, which does not appear to be justified in view of above observations.

From Para 9 (Enquire the parties about Exceptional Hardship or lack of it)

9. On other hand, it would have been appropriate for learned trial Judge to have devoted some effort to enquire about existence or otherwise of exceptional hardship as provided in Section 14 of Act. Without such exercise, arrival of conclusion as above would not be justified.

Sushil Daddimani and Anr Vs Nil on 27 Mar 2024

Index of Divorce Matters here.

Y.G. Rajesh Vs M Ramya and Anr on 08 Feb 2024

Posted on April 10, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Karnataka High Court held as follows,

From Para 6-10,

6. Upon considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner/husband, though there is savings of exorbitant quantum of amount made deductible just to negate giving maintenance to the wife and child, what are the compulsorily amounts to be deducted are income tax and professional tax. But considering deductions from the salary of petitioner/husband, those are provident fund contribution, house rent recovery, furniture recovery, towards loan obtained by the petitioner/husband, LIC premium and festival advance, these are all deductions accruing to the benefit of petitioner only. These amounts cannot be made deductible while considering for assessment of maintenance amount.
7. While appreciating salary/income of the husband above stated deductions cannot be considered while calculating salary of husband. If this is allowed, then in every case of petition filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. there would be tendency by the husband to create artificial deductions making an attempt to show lesser take home salary with an intention to mislead the Courts in order to negate to give maintenance or an attempt to award to make lesser amount of maintenance. Therefore, if the Court finds that the deductions are artificial deductions in the manner above discussed, then the Court has to consider the entire evidence on record on all its preponderance of probabilities while awarding quantum of maintenance amount. The deductions as above stated will ultimately enure to the benefit of the husband only. Suppose if the husband raises loan for purchase of site, house or car and the deduction is made from the salary and shown in his salary certificate, ultimately that raising of loan is for the benefit of husband only and just because deductions are made in this regard, it is not the ground to award lesser quantum of maintenance.
8. In the present case, the deductions is more than 50%, hence, it is proved that the husband has made an arrangement to show more deductions with an intention to pay lesser amount of maintenance. Therefore, the said deductions above discussed cannot be the factor to award lesser quantum of maintenance to the wife. In the present case, it is admitted that the petitioner/husband is a Branch Manager working in State Bank of India receiving salary of more than Rs.1,00,000/- per month. Then the Family Court is correct in awarding maintenance award of Rs.15,000/- per month to the wife and Rs.10,000/- per month to the child/daughter, which needs no interference by this Court.
9. Therefore, it is proved that the respondents have become destitute at the hands of the petitioner and the petitioner is working as Manager in State Bank of India and receiving a lucrative salary per month and thus upon considering all these facts and circumstances, it is proved that the petitioner is financially capable person to maintain his wife and daughter. Thus, order passed by the Family Court need not be interfered with and as such, the petition is dismissed being devoid of merits with cost of Rs.15,000/- payable to the respondents by the petitioner herein.

Y.G. Rajesh Vs M Ramya and Anr on 08 Feb 2024

Index of Maintenance cases u/s 125 CrPC are here.

B Venkat Rao Vs State of Telangana on 07 Nov 2023

Posted on March 24, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Telangana High Court held as follows,

From Paras 3 and 4,

3. The petitioner who is the husband filed an application under Section 91 of Cr.P.C seeking a direction from the learned Magistrate for producing the passport copy of PW1. The learned Magistrate dismissed the said application on the ground that 91 Cr.P.C cannot be invoked against the witness and it would amount to testimonial compulsion.
4. The document sought to be produced is the passport of PW1. PW1 is a witness, not accused. In fact, in her cross examination on 01.11.2022, she stated that she can produce the passport if necessary. In the said circumstances, when the witness herself has volunteered to produce the passport, the same can be permitted. PW1 shall produce her passport for the purpose of cross examination.

B Venkat Rao Vs State of Telangana on 07 Nov 2023

This Order was challenged before the Apex Court here.

Rajesh Aggarwal and Anr Vs State of NCT Delhi and Anr on 12 Mar 2024

Posted on March 20, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Delhi High Court held as follows,

From Paras 11 and 12,

11. He further submits that cognizance of the charge-sheet filed by the police was taken by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate only against accused no.1, that is, Mr. Yogesh Gupta, and summons were issued to him alone vide order dated 22.12.2020. Later, by an order dated 06.07.2022, summons were issued also against other accused, including the petitioners herein. He submits that this is a procedure unknown to law.
12. He further submits that charges inter alia against the petitioners have been framed on 24.01.2023 in absence of the petitioners inasmuch as the petitioners, due to an inadvertent error, had noted the next date of hearing as 24.02.2023, which is also reflected on the official website of the Courts, and had not appeared on 24.01.2023.

From Paras 17 and 18,

17. In Kahkashan Kausar @ Sonam & Ors.,(Supra), the Supreme Court highlighted the concern over the misuse of Section 498A of the IPC and in the increasing tendency of the complainant to implicate the relatives of the husband in matrimonial disputes.
18. The Supreme Court also placed reliance on the precedents on this issue in Rajesh Sharma & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Anr., (2018) 10 SCC 472; Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar & Anr., (2014) 8 SCC 273; Preeti Gupta & Anr. v. State of Jharkhand & Anr., (2010) 7 SCC 667; Geeta Mehrotra & Anr v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Anr., (2012) 10 SCC 741, and K. Subba Rao v. State of Telangana, (2018) 14 SCC 452 and held that in the absence of any specific and distinct allegations being made against the family members of the husband and where there are only general and omnibus allegations, the FIR registered against such family members is liable to be quashed. It was further held that, in fact, in such cases if the family members are forced to go through the tribulations of trial, it would inflict severe scars upon them and such exercise must be discouraged.

From Para 22, (hehehehe)

21. As clever case of drafting, specific allegations have been made dating back to around 1994-95 against Mr.Vimal Aggarwal, the other maternal uncle of the husband of the respondent no.2 and his wife Ms.Anu Aggarwal. Specific allegations against the petitioners dating back to 18.07.2007 have been made. As noted hereinabove, the complaint has been filed almost 10 years thereafter.

From Para 23,

23. In Mahmood Ali and Others (Supra), the Supreme Court emphasised that the High Court owes a duty to look into the FIR with care and a little more closely. It was further observed that it will not be enough for the Court to look into the averments made in the FIR/complaint alone for the purpose of ascertaining whether the necessary ingredients to constitute the alleged offence are disclosed or not and, in frivolous or vexatious proceedings, the Court owes a duty to look into many other attending circumstances emerging from the record of the case over and above the averments and, if need be, with due care and circumspection, try to read in between the lines.

From Para 24,

24. Where the wife is set to implicate the entire family of the husband in a criminal case, it is to be expected that through her lawyer she would get a complaint properly drafted making some specific allegations against each of the family members. If only on such averment, the family members are to face agony of the trial, it would defeat the ends of the justice. In my opinion, therefore, the Court must scrutinise the complaint/FIR to determine whether the allegations are a case of clever drafting or have at least some element of truth in the same. Though the Court is not expected to conduct a mini trial, the Court also cannot be a mere spectator and refuse to exercise the power that is vested in it under Section 482 of the Cr.P.C., where it finds that the continuation of such proceedings would defeat the ends of the justice and would amount to insurmountable harassment, agony and pain to the accused and be an abuse of the criminal process.

Rajesh Aggarwal and Anr Vs State of NCT Delhi and Anr on 12 Mar 2024

Index of Quash judgments is here.

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: 1-Judge Bench Decision

M.Chinna Karuppasamy Vs Kanimozhi on 16 Jul 2015

Shrikrishna Vs Sunita Bai on 02 May 2024

K Sreekanth Naik Vs P Nalini and Anr on 25 Apr 2024

Jelakara Chandra Sekhar Vs Nil on 16 Jun 2022

Layak Singh Vs Ekta Kumari on 21 Mar 2024

Dandamudi Phani Krishna Vs Boyapati Lakshmi Aparna on 22 Mar 2024

Sushil Daddimani and Anr Vs Nil on 27 Mar 2024

Y.G. Rajesh Vs M Ramya and Anr on 08 Feb 2024

B Venkat Rao Vs State of Telangana on 07 Nov 2023

Rajesh Aggarwal and Anr Vs State of NCT Delhi and Anr on 12 Mar 2024