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.

Sachin Kumar Daksh Vs Mamta Gola and Anr on 16 Feb 2024

Posted on March 14, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Delhi High Court allowed wife to file fresh affidavit in a 125 CrPC maintenance proceedings, after husband files a 340 CrPC perjury application.

From Para 8,

8. I have given considered thought to the contentions raised.
The maintenance granted to the wife is as a measure of social justice and the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is with an objective to protect women and children from vagrancy and destitution. The Family Courts have been established for adopting and facilitating the conciliation procedure and to deal with family disputes in an expeditious and speedy manner. Section 10(3) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 provides that nothing in sub-section 1 or sub-section 2 of Section 10 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 shall prevent a Family Court from laying down its own procedure with a view to arrive at a settlement in respect of the subject matter of the suit or proceedings or at the truth of the facts alleged by one party and denied by another party. Thus, the objective remains to reach at the truth of the facts, which is a guiding star for the proceedings under the Family Courts Act. Even in terms of Section 14 of the Family Court Act, the Family Court may receive as evidence any report, statement, information or matter that may in its opinion assists it to deal effectively with the dispute, whether or not the same would be otherwise relevant or admissible under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Keeping in perspective the aforesaid objective and provisions, the technicalities cannot be permitted to prevail. The learned Family Court after appreciation of the facts correctly permitted the filing of the fresh affidavit instead of amendment of earlier affidavit to enable the parties to bring out any inconsistencies or discrepancies for consideration.

From Para 10, (Perjury proceedings are intact)

10. It may further be observed that any direction by the Trial Court to file a fresh affidavit does not obliterate the earlier affidavit filed by respondent No.1 on record. Appropriate proceedings can always be considered by the Court in accordance with law in case the Court is of the opinion that a false affidavit had been filed in the proceedings by either of the parties. The same does not in any manner adversely impact the application, if any, preferred by the petitioner under Section 340 Cr.P.C.

Sachin Kumar Daksh Vs Mamta Gola and Anr on 16 Feb 2024

Index of Perjury proceedings is here. Index of Maintenance proceedings is here.

Rajkumar Amruthrao Guddadigi Vs Shilaja Rajkumar Guddadigi on 04 Jan 2024

Posted on March 12, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single (Dr) judge of the Bombay High Court held as follows,

From Para 10, (Enjoy the perversity)

10. The perusal of the order impugned indicates that the trial Judge has taken into account all the facts necessary to be considered for fair adjudication and determination of quantum of interim maintenance. The trial Judge has applied all the settled parameters while doing so. The Petitioner/husband is a qualified Engineer and is suitably employed. His standard of living is fairly modest. The Respondent/wife is also a qualified MBA but unable to hold down a permanent job as she is single handedly looking after a ten years old. The mere fact that she is residing in the matrimonial home is not a pretext to disentitle her to a reasonable amount of maintenance. She still needs some amount towards food, medicine, clothes and educational expenses for the child. Thus, considering the status of the parties, reasonable needs of the wife and minor son are parameters to be considered while determining the sufficiency and the reasonableness of the quantum of interim maintenance to be adjudged so that the wife is able to maintain herself and the minor son in reasonable comfort. The quantum of maintenance awarded by the trial Judge is neither oppressive nor is it unendurable for the Petitioner/husband and there is no hardship caused to him. The amount of Rs.3,000/- is also reasonable for litigation expenses and barely sufficient for her to defend herself in the divorce Petition initiated by her husband. In view of the same, no interference is required in the order impugned herein. The quantum of interim maintenance, as adjudged by the trial Court, is reasonable and does not suffer from any infirmity. The Petition is, thus, dismissed.

Rajkumar Amruthrao Guddadigi Vs Shilaja Rajkumar Guddadigi on 04 Jan 2024

Index of HMA judgments here.

Nirman Sagar Vs Monika Sagar Chaudhari and Anr on 01 Apr 2022

Posted on March 12, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior bench held as follows,

From Para 9,

9. Thus, the proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. may be taken against any person in any district where he or his wife resides or where he last resided with her wife or as the case may be with the mother of the illegitimate child. It is not the case of the respondent no.1 that she resided with the applicant for the last time in Gwalior.Her contention is that Gwalior is her permanent address as her parents are residing there and she occasionally visits her parents and,therefore, the Family Court, Gwalior has a jurisdiction to entertain the application filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. The stand taken bythe respondent no.1 cannot be appreciated as the word “resides” cannot be equated with places where flying visits are made. It is not the case of respondent no.1 that at the time of filing of the applicationunder Section 125 of Cr.P.C. she was posted in Gwalior and the Family Court, Gwalior would not lose jurisdiction merely on the ground that subsequently she was transferred, but the case of respondent no.1 is that from the year 2011 onwards she is posted inDelhi. Flying visits to a particular place with a solitary intention to confer jurisdiction would not satisfy the provisions of Section 126 (1)of Cr.P.C.
10. Thus, it is clear that a casual stay or a flying visit to a particular place cannot be treated as a part of the word “reside”.

From Paras 14-15,

14. Thus, it is clear that it is the contention of the respondent no.1 that her daughter is residing with her. Admittedly, respondent no.2, daughter of respondent no.1, is prosecuting her studies in Delhi. Thus, it is clear that both the respondents no.1 and 2 are residing in Delhi where respondent no.1 is serving in Airport Authority of India and is posted as ATC. The respondent no.1 is serving in Delhi from the year 2011. The address which has been shown by them in the cause-title has been given with a solitary intention to give territorial jurisdiction to the Family Court, Gwalior and in fact the Family Court, Gwalior has no territorial jurisdiction to try the application in the light of Section 126 of Cr.P.C.
15. Accordingly, order dated 25/10/2021 passed by the Additional Judge to the Court of Principal Judge, Family Court, Gwalior in case No.234/2019 (new no.367/2021) is hereby set aside. The application filed by the respondents under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the Family Court, Gwalior is held to be without jurisdiction. However, liberty is granted to the respondents that if they so desire, they can file an application under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. before the Courts having jurisdiction in the light of Section 126 of Cr.P.C.

Nirman Sagar Vs Monika Sagar Chaudhari and Anr on 01 Apr 2022

Index of Maintenance cases u/s 125 Cr.P.C. is here.

Suresh Tiwari and Anr Vs Madhu Tiwari on 31 Jul 2023

Posted on March 11, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Delhi High Court, relying on Vimalben and Laxmi decisions, held as follows,

From Paras 4-6,

4. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent, while not disputing the above submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that the respondent has now become aware of certain coparcenary properties in the possession of the petitioners. He submits that, in fact, there are certain properties of the late husband of the respondent which are now being held by the petitioners. He submits that he shall be moving an appropriate application before the learned Family Court to bring on record the above facts.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioners disputes the assertions of the learned counsel for the respondent that there are any coparcenary properties held by the petitioner no.1 or that there are any properties of the late husband of the respondent being held by the petitioners.
6. Be that as it may, the Impugned Order, which grants interim maintenance to the respondent, cannot be sustained.

From Paras 8-9,

8. This Court in Laxmi & Anr. (supra) has reiterated that a daughter-in-law can claim maintenance from her father-in-law, provided that the father-in-law has inherited some estate of her husband. In absence of any such disclosure, the daughter-in-law cannot maintain such claim against the father-in-law; in any case, claim cannot be maintained against the mother-in-law.
9. In Satpal (supra), the Division Bench of Punjab & Haryana High Court also reiterated that for invoking the provision of Section 19 of the Act, the widowed daughter-in-law has to show that the father-in-law has coparcenary property in his possession. Such claim will not lie against the salary of the father-in-law or against his self-acquired property.

Finally, from Paras 10-11,

10. In the present case, as the petition filed by the respondent stands today, there is no averment of the petitioner no.1 holding any coparcenary property against which the respondent can maintain her claim under Section 19 of the Act. The Impugned Order also does not give any such finding. The Impugned Order, therefore, cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside.
11. As far as the plea of the learned counsel for the respondent that the respondent has now become aware of coparcenary property in the possession of the petitioner no.1 and/or that the petitioners are holding properties belonging to the late husband of the respondent, in absence of such averments before the learned Family Court, they cannot be taken cognizance of at this stage by this Court. The respondent shall be free to move an appropriate application in this regard before the learned Family Court, and the same shall be considered by the learned Family Court remaining uninfluenced by any observations made in the present order.

Suresh Tiwari and Anr Vs Madhu Tiwari on 31 Jul 2023

Index of judgments under HAMA 1956 are here.

Pulipati Srinivas Vs State of Telangana and Ors on 14 Feb 2024

Posted on March 5, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of Telangana High Court imposed ‘exemplary costs on petitioner as well as learned counsel, to be quantified at Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen lacs only) so as to prohibit them, in future, from filing cases which result in taxing the judicial time.’

From Paras 4-7,

4. Concealing / suppression of material facts would amount to abuse of process of law, playing fraud with Court as well as opposite party. The jurisdiction exercised by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is extraordinary, equitable and discretionary and it is imperative that petitioner approaching the writ Court must come with clean hands and put forward all facts before the Court without concealing or suppressing anything. A litigant is bound to state the facts which are relevant to the litigation. If he / she withholds some vital / relevant material, in order to gain advantage over the other side, then he / she would be guilty of playing fraud which cannot be countenanced. The parties have to disclose the details of all legal proceedings and litigation either past or present concerning any part of the subject matter of dispute which is within their knowledge. In case, according to the parties to the lis, no legal proceedings or court litigation were or are pending, they have to mandatorily state so in their pleadings in order to resolve the dispute between the parties in accordance with law.
5. Alas, our judicial system is grossly afflicted with frivolous litigation, hence, ways and means need to be evolved to deter litigants from their compulsive obsession towards senseless and ill-considered claims. Litigation like the present one is contributing fuel to fire in mounting pendency, disabling the Courts to discharge the prime duty of justice dissemination. One needs to keep in mind that there is an innocent sufferer on the other side of every irresponsible and senseless claim.
6. This Court expresses its dissatisfaction on the unbecoming conduct of a legal practitioner such as the counsel for petitioner in this case for wasting judicial time by filing cases suppressing the facts. It is a well-known fact that there is huge pendency of cases and pressure on Judges in disposing of such cases is enormous. Genuine litigation is not getting the attention of this Court by this type of frivolous litigation. Earlier, on couple of occasions, this Court cautioned learned counsel to refrain from filing such type of cases which benefit no citizen. Learned counsel filed Writ Petition No. 37851 of 2022 wherein, for suppression of material events, this Court imposed Rs.1,00,000/- to petitioner. Thereafter, in Writ Petition No. 2666 of 2004, for the very same reason, this Court imposed costs of Rs.1,00,000/-, however, at the request of his junior colleagues, the said order was recalled. On the next occasion, on the same ground, when this Court warned the learned counsel, he sought permission to withdraw the Writ Petition. Keeping in view the financial status of the litigant, this Court has shown lenience and disposed of the Writ Petition. Still, learned counsel has been exhibiting the same attitude which forces this Court to impose exemplary costs on petitioner as well as learned counsel, to be quantified at Rs.15,00,000/- (Rupees fifteen lacs only) so as to prohibit them, in future, from filing cases which result in taxing the judicial time.
7. With the above observations, the Writ Petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 15,00,000/- (Rupees Fifteen lacs only) to be deposited with Telangana High Court Legal Services Committee within four weeks from today. In default, needless to say, Registry shall list the Writ Petition before the Court.

Pulipati Srinivas Vs State of Telangana and Ors on 14 Feb 2024

Index of Perjury Judgements is here.

Anupati Rajesh Vs Peruboina Anusha Sai on 05 Feb 2024

Posted on February 19, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A perverse order passed by the AP High Court, totally bypassing the intent of the Apex Court is prescribing the guidelines in Rajnesh Vs Neha decision here.

From Paras 6-7,

6. Learned counsel for the revision petitioner submitted that the court below erred in allowing the petition even without filing the statement of assets and liabilities and further that the respondent herself deserted the petitioner and yet, sought maintenance, and therefore, she is not entitled to claim any interim maintenance. It is also submitted by him that without there being any evidence of income of the petitioner, the Court below granted interim maintenance of exorbitant amount, which is unsustainable. In support of his contentions, learned counsel placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Rajnesh Vs. Neha and others1, wherein at paragraph No.99, it was held as follows:
“99. The Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities annexed as Enclosures I, II and III of this judgment, as may be applicable, shall be filed by both parties in all maintenance proceedings, including pending proceedings before the concerned Family Court/District Court/Magistrates Court, as the case may be, throughout the country.”
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the petitioner has not raised any objection before the trial Court about the statement to be filed nor did he file any such statement. He further submitted that the petitioner herein did not dispute his income in the counter filed by him and further, after considering the facts and allegations submitted on both sides, the impugned order was passed by the Court below, and therefore, the same does not require any interference.

From Paras 9-11,

9. The petitioner herein has not raised any objection that the interim order cannot be granted in view of non-filing of such a statement by the respondent herein. As such, the trial Court had no opportunity to decide on that aspect. Hence, the petitioner cannot contend that the impugned order is illegal on that ground.
10. As rightly contended, the petitioner herein in his counter did not specifically deny his earnings and he merely stated that the respondent/wife did not file any proof in support of the income stated in the petition. Therefore, the trial Court has rightly taken the earning capacity of the revision petitioner into consideration while fixing the quantum of maintenance.
11. Insofar as the question of desertion by the respondent herein is concerned, it is a matter of enquiry after full-fledged trial and prima facie there is no material on record to support the contention of the petitioner herein that the respondent herself deserted the petitioner as contended.

Anupati Rajesh Vs Peruboina Anusha Sai on 05 Feb 2024

Index of all maintenance cases is here.

Chatter Pal and Ors Vs State and Anr on 16 May 2023

Posted on February 19, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of Delhi High Court passed these guidelines to the Mediators…

From Para 42,

(b) Guidelines Apropos Drafting A Settlement Agreement in Matrimonial Disputes with Special Reference to Clauses dealing with Criminal Cases
42. Having discussed the significance of process of mediation in resolution of a dispute, especially those arising out of family and matrimonial cases, and having taken note of complexities that can arise due to inadequate drafting, inconsistencies, omissions or oversights within a settlement agreement achieved between parties subsequent to a successful mediation, this Court deems it appropriate to lay down following guidelines in relation to drafting of a Mediated Settlement Agreement, in addition to the guidelines laid down:
(i) Specify Names of Parties: The agreement must specifically contain names of all the parties to the agreement.
(ii) Avoid Ambiguous Terms: The terms such as ‘respondent’, ‘respondents’, ‘petitioner’ or ‘petitioners’, in absence of their names in the agreement must be avoided in an agreement as it leads to ambiguities and further litigation.
(iii) Include All Details: The terms and conditions of the agreement reached between the parties, howsoever small and minute they may be, must be incorporated in the agreement.
(iv) Timeline For Compliance: The timeline of the fulfilment of terms and conditions as well as their execution must be clearly mentioned. There should be no tentative dates as far as possible.
(v) Default Clause: A default clause should be incorporated in the agreement and the consequences thereof should be explained and enlisted in the agreement itself.
(vi) Mode of Payment: In case any payment is to be made as per settlement, the agreement should specify the method of payment agreed upon between the parties which should also be as per their convenience i.e. electronic mode, by way of a Demand Draft or FDR and the necessary details for fulfilment of this condition.
(vii) Follow-Up Documents: The agreement should also stipulate as to which Follow-up documents are to be prepared and signed by which party. It may also be mentioned as to when, where, how and at whose cost such documents are to be prepared in furtherance of the terms of the agreement, as far as possible.
(viii) Cases involving 498A IPC: Further, especially in cases of matrimonial disputes, where one of the conditions in the Agreement is to cooperate in quashing of FIR, such as those under Section 498A IPC, and filing of affidavit and appearing in the Court for the purpose of the same, it is advisable that the agreement must stipulate the names of all the parties concerned who have been named in the FIR specifically and the fact that the claims have been settled in totality for quashing of entire FIR and proceedings emanating therefrom qua all persons named in the FIR. It be also clarified specifically that the FIR will be quashed in totality against all the persons arrested, not arrested, chargesheeted, not chargesheeted, with their names and whether the entire FIR will be quashed against all of them upon payment by husband or any other person on behalf of the husband.
(ix) Criminal Complaints/Cross-cases: Criminal Complaints filed by parties against each other, pending trial or investigation should also find specific mention with names of all the parties, the Court concerned, and as to how the parties intend to deal with them. The number/details of the complaint, FIR, Sections under which they have been filed, should also be mentioned specifically.
(x) Read and Understood: The agreement should necessarily mention that all the parties have read and understood the contents of the settlement agreement in their vernacular language.
(xi) Signing of Agreement: In case only one or some parties are present during mediation proceedings and only their signatures are obtained on the agreement, it be clearly mentioned and clarified that the agreement is being signed on behalf of those relatives or parties also even in case they are not present, in case the agreement is qua them too and they are not present in person due to age, ailment, distance or any other reason. It is important to do so since in matrimonial offences, the near and distant relatives may, due to above reasons, not be present in person but agreements are reached in totality, especially regarding quashing of FIRs and criminal proceedings and withdrawal of complaints.
(xii) Clarity of Language: At last, the language used in a settlement agreement must be definite enough to understand the real intention of the parties and the goals they wish to achieve by entering into the agreement.

Chatter Pal and Ors Vs State and Anr on 16 May 2023

Kinjal Jayesh Mehta Vs Disha Jimit Sanghvi and Anr on 14 Feb 2024

Posted on February 15, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Bombay High Court held as follows,

From Para 12,

12. The issue presented for consideration is whether the Petitioner who is the married sister in law of the aggrieved person and admittedly residing in her own matrimonial house can be stated to be in a domestic relationship within the meaning of Section 2 (f) of the D.V. Act particularly when the marriage of the Petitioner has taken place prior to the marriage of the Respondent No.1. While deciding the above issue the incidental issue to be decided is whether the allegation in the application that the Petitioner used to spend her whole day in the shared household is sufficient to constitute domestic relationship between the aggrieved person and the Petitioner.
13. The relationship between the parties inter se is not disputed neither the factum of the Petitioner’s marriage being solemnised prior to the marriage of the Respondent No 1. The separate residence of the Petitioner at her matrimonial house is also borne out from the address of the Petitioner given in the domestic violence application which is different from the address of the shared household.

From Para 16,

16. The facts of the instant case makes it evident that the Petitioner and the Respondent No 1 never resided together in the shared household i.e. the matrimonial house of the Respondent No.1 at “Siddesh Jyoti Tower”. To salvage the situation, given the above noted admitted position, Mr. Desai would contend that the decision of Apex Court in Prabha Tyagi (supra) as well as the decision in Rashmi Mehrotra (supra) has held that it was not mandatory for the aggrieved person to have actually resided with those persons against whom the allegations have been levelled. I am unable to subscribe to the reading of the decision of the Apex Court as desired by Mr.Desai. The decision in the case of Prabha Tyagi (supra) is being read by Mr. Desai dehors the facts of that case which are completely distinguishable.

From Para 20,

20. The law laid down by the Apex Court in Prabha Tyagi (supra) will not assist the case of Respondent No 1 as the Petitioner is the married sister-in-law residing in her own matrimonial house and it cannot be said that the right of the aggrieved person to reside in the shared household would constitute a subsisting domestic relationship with the Petitioner. It would have been a different matter if the Petitioner was unmarried and was residing in the shared household in which case considering the right to reside conferred by Section 17(1) of the D.V. Act, the aggrieved person could have been said to be in subsisting domestic relationship with the Petitioner even if the parties had never resided together in the shared household. It is the right of the aggrieved person to reside in the shared household which constitutes domestic relationship between the aggrieved person and persons residing in the shared household. However, such are not the facts in the instant case as Petitioner is residing separately in her matrimonial house.

From Para 23,

23. Now coming to the pleadings in the application, it is pleaded by the Respondent No 1 that the Petitioner was spending her whole day in the shared household. The said pleading finds place in the paragraph describing the inter se relationship between the aggrieved person and the Respondents. The other pleading is that the Petitioner everyday used to come to the shared household at 2:00 p.m. and leave at around 8:00 p.m. The marriage of the Respondent No.1 was solemnized on 20th November, 2021 and has claimed to be dispossessed on 30th January, 2022. The pleadings as regards the visits of the Petitioner do not indicate an element of permanency sufficient enough to constitute domestic relationship even if it is accepted that the Petitioner was spending her entire day in the shared household.

Finally, from Para 27,

27. In view of the discussion above, in my view, there was no subsisting domestic relationship between the Petitioner and the Respondent No 1 and the Petitioner could not have been arrayed as Respondent in the D.V. application. The mere visits of the Petitioner to the shared household being devoid of any permanency is not sufficient and adequate to constitute residence in shared household. Even otherwise considering the pleadings in the applications read with the reliefs, there is no case of domestic violence made out qua the Petitioner.

Kinjal Jayesh Mehta Vs Disha Jimit Sanghvi and Anr on 14 Feb 2024

Index of DV cases is here.

M.R.Somasundaram and Ors Vs B Rahini and Anr on 12 Dec 2023

Posted on February 12, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Madras High Court at Madurai bench held as follows, while relying on Kunapareddy case,

From Para 10,

10. Considering the above, the petitioners are entitled to approach the concerned Magistrate Court itself and raise the issue of maintainability and other preliminary issues and if such an application is filed, the learned Magistrate shall decide the same as per the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kunapareddy @ Nookala Shanka Balaji Vs. Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari and another reported in (2016) 11 SCC 774.

M.R.Somasundaram and Ors Vs B Rahini and Anr on 12 Dec 2023

Index of DV cases is here.

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: 1-Judge Bench Decision

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

Sachin Kumar Daksh Vs Mamta Gola and Anr on 16 Feb 2024

Rajkumar Amruthrao Guddadigi Vs Shilaja Rajkumar Guddadigi on 04 Jan 2024

Nirman Sagar Vs Monika Sagar Chaudhari and Anr on 01 Apr 2022

Suresh Tiwari and Anr Vs Madhu Tiwari on 31 Jul 2023

Pulipati Srinivas Vs State of Telangana and Ors on 14 Feb 2024

Anupati Rajesh Vs Peruboina Anusha Sai on 05 Feb 2024

Chatter Pal and Ors Vs State and Anr on 16 May 2023

Kinjal Jayesh Mehta Vs Disha Jimit Sanghvi and Anr on 14 Feb 2024

M.R.Somasundaram and Ors Vs B Rahini and Anr on 12 Dec 2023