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

Tag: 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision

Bhawna Vs Bhay Ram and Ors on 17 Feb 2023

Posted on September 14, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Apex Court declared the act of imposing cost of DV complainant to examine witnesses.

The appellant is the complainant in a case under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. In the trial, the right of the appellant to lead evidence was closed and the complaint was rejected. Therefore, the appellant had filed an appeal. The Appellate Court allowed the appeal directing the trial court to reopen the case and allow the appellant to lead evidence subject to her paying cost of Rs.20,000/- per witness. When the appellant moved the High Court against the said order, the High Court reduced the cost to Rs.10,000/- per witness. In addition, the Appellate Court as well as the High Court said that the appellant will not be entitled to maintenance during the said period.
In a complaint filed under the Protection of women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, it is not open to the Court to impose such onerous conditions upon the appellant, who claims to be a victim of domestic violence. What the Appellate Court and the High Court have ordered are actually in the nature of penalty for the appellant not proceeding with the trial. In the first instance, it is impermissible in law.
Therefore, the appeal is allowed and that portion of the order of the Appellate Court and the High Court imposing the cost upon the appellant for examination of every witness and also depriving the appellant of interim maintenance is set aside.
The trial court shall permit the appellant to lead evidence without imposing the onerous conditions.
Physical presence of the parents-in-law of the appellant, who are also the respondents herein, shall be dispensed with by the trial court.

Bhawna Vs Bhay Ram and Ors on 17 Feb 2023

Index of DV cases is here.

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Bhawna Vs Bhay Ram and Ors | Leave a comment

Career Institute Educational Society Vs Om Shree Thakurji Educational Society on 24 Apr 2023

Posted on September 12, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A Division bench of Apex Court discussed the distinction between Ratio Decidendi and Obiter Dicta.

The distinction between obiter dicta and ratio decidendi in a judgment, as a proposition of law, has been examined by several judgments of this Court, but we would like to refer to two, namely, State of Gujarat & Ors. vs. Utility Users’ Welfare Association & Ors.8 and Jayant Verma & Ors. vs. Union of India & Ors.9

Testing for Ratio Decidendi:

The first judgment in State of Gujarat (supra) applies, what is called, “the inversion test” to identify what is ratio decidendi in a judgment. To test whether a particular proposition of law is to be treated as the ratio decidendi of the case, the proposition is to be inversed, i.e. to remove from the text of the judgment as if it did not exist. If the conclusion of the case would still have been the same even without examining the proposition, then it cannot be regarded as the ratio decidendi of the case.

What is vital for decision making?

In Jayant Verma (supra), this Court has referred to an earlier decision of this Court in Dalbir Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab10 to state that it is not the findings of material facts, direct and inferential, but the statements of the principles of law applicable to the legal problems disclosed by the facts, which is the vital element in the decision and operates as a precedent, albeit operates as res judicata. Even the conclusion does not operate as a precedent. Thus, it is not everything said by a Judge when giving judgment that constitutes a precedent. The only thing in a Judge’s decision binding as a legal precedent is the principle upon which the case is decided and, for this reason, it is important to analyse a decision and isolate from it the obiter dicta.

Career Institute Educational Society Vs Om Shree Thakurji Educational Society on 24 Apr 2023
Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Career Institute Educational Society Vs Om Shree Thakurji Educational Society Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Ratio Decidendi Vs Obiter Dicta | Leave a comment

Mamta Vs Pradeep Kumar on 05 Sep 2023

Posted on September 5, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Delhi High Court held as follows,

From Para 12,

12. Marriages under old Hindu Law are considered as a sacrament and did not recognize the concept of divorce. Once this union of marriage was established, the ties were for the entire life of the spouses which could not be severed under any circumstances. Complete shift of paradigm from the social ethos happened with the enactment of the Act, 1955 which not only introduced the concept of ‘monogamy’ but also defined certain grounds on which alone divorce could be granted. Despite this phenomenal change in the social ethos, the Act, 1955 recognises the ground of divorce only on “Fault Theory”. Unless the opposite party was shown to be at fault, whether it was for ‘Adultery’, ‘Cruelty’, ‘Desertion’ or other grounds as specified under Section 13 of the Act, 1955, no divorce can be granted. With the passage of time, experience has shown that many a times, the marriages do not work because of incompatibility and temperamental differences, for which neither party can be blamed. However, since only Fault Theory prevails, these parties end up warring with each other for years to come only because they have no way of exiting this relationship. While many debates have been held to introduce “Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage” as a ground, it has not met the approval and consent of the legislation. We are bound by limits as defined under the Act, 1955 and unless the fault of the other spouse is shown, the parties are left to suffer acrimonious relationship with no way to exit. In this backdrop, the facts of the present case may be considered.

From Para 30,

30. We conclude that in the present case the parties are living separately for 15 years now; there is no chance of reconciliation between the parties and such long separation peppered which false allegations, police reports and criminal trial has become a source of mental cruelty and any insistence either to continue this relationship or modifying the Family Court’s order would only be inflicting further cruelty upon both the parties. Living together in a marriage is not an irreversible act. But marriage is a tie between two parties and if this tie is not working under any circumstances, we see no purpose in postponing the inevitability of the situation.

Mamta Vs Pradeep Kumar on 05 Sep 2023

Citations: [2023 DHC 6384-DB]

Other Sources:

 


Index of Divorce judgments here.

Posted in High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to HM Act - Mental Cruelty Proved HM Act 13 - Divorce Granted to Husband Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage Mamta Vs Pradeep Kumar | Leave a comment

Sindhu Janak Nagargoje Vs The State of Maharashtra and Ors on 08 Aug 2023

Posted on August 14, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

Relying on the landmark decision in Lalita Kumari case here, a division bench of Apex Court held that when a complaint disclosed cognizable offence, a FIR has to be registered u/s 154(1) CrPC and proceeded with investigation.

In view of the decision rendered by the Constitution Bench in the case of “Lalita Kumari vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.,” reported in (2014) 2 SCC 1, we are of the opinion that the registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of CrPC, if the information discloses commission of cognizable offence. We may reiterate summary of law stated therein: –
“120. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold:
120.1. The registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation.
120.2. If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not.
120.3 If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further.
120.4 The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence.
120.5 The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence.
120.6 As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under:
(a) Matrimonial disputes/ family disputes
(b) Commercial offences
(c) Medical negligence cases
(d) Corruption cases
(e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months delay in reporting the matter without
satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay.
The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry.
120.7 While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time bound and, in any case, it should not exceed 7 days. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary entry.
120.8 Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the record of all information received in a police station, we direct that all information
relating to cognizable offences, whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the said Diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be reflected, as mentioned above.”

Sindhu Janak Nagargoje Vs The State of Maharashtra and Ors on 08 Aug 2023

Citations:

Other Sources:

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision CrPC 154 - Information in Cognizable Cases Lalita Kumari Vs Govt.Of U.P. and Ors Sindhu Janak Nagargoje Vs The State of Maharashtra and Ors | Leave a comment

S.P. Mani and Mohan Dairy Vs Dr Snehalatha Elangovan on 16 Sep 2022

Posted on August 12, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

 

 

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision CrPC 482 - Defence Documents may be Examined for Quash Reportable Judgement or Order S.P. Mani and Mohan Dairy Vs Dr Snehalatha Elangovan | Leave a comment

Asfaq Alam Vs State of Jharkhand and Anr on 31 Jul 2023

Posted on August 5, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

 

Asfaq Aslam Vs State of Jharkhand and Anr on 31 Jul 2023
Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Arnesh Kumar Vs State Of Bihar and Anr Asfaq Alam Vs State of Jharkhand and Anr Misuse or Violation of CrPC 41A per Guidelines in Arnesh Kumar Judgment Reportable Judgement or Order | Leave a comment

Afia Rasheed Khan Vs Mazharuddin Ali Khan and Anr on 10 Oct 2022

Posted on August 5, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

The Apex Court held that there is no cause of action arising at Mumbai for a DV case, due to casual visits and such trips do not qualify as ‘temporarily residing’.

The present petition has been filed at the instance of the petitioner/complainant assailing the order passed by the High Court affirming the view expressed by the trial Court holding that the complaint filed at the instance of the petitioner under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (‘DV Act’) instituted before the competent court at Mumbai lacks territorial jurisdiction.

It is an admitted fact which has come on record that from the date of their marriage which was solemnized, i.e. 26.09.1993, the petitioner was residing in Hyderabad along with the other family members including the respondent (husband) and her children. She came to Mumbai for the first time leaving her matrimonial home on27.09.2021 and complaint under Section 12 of DV Act came to be filed at her instance before the Court of learned Magistrate, Bandra on 20.10.2021 that came to be dismissed by the learned trial Judge because of lack of territorial jurisdiction.
After we have heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the facts on record, find that no error has been committed by the High Court under the impugned judgment.
The Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed.

Afia Rasheed Khan Vs Mazharuddin Ali Khan and Anr on 10 Oct 2022

The Bombay High Court Order is given below:

Afia Rasheed Khan Vs Mazharuddin Ali Khan and Anr on 03 Dec 2021

Index of DV cases is here.

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Afia Rasheed Khan Vs Mazharuddin Ali Khan and Anr PWDV Act Sec 27 - Dismissed for Lack of Jurisdiction PWDV Act Sec 27 - Territorial Jurisdiction Territorial Jurisdiction | Leave a comment

Deoki Panjhiyara Vs Shashi Bhushan Narayan Azad and Anr on 12 Dec 2012

Posted on July 24, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Apex Court held that, Unless there is a declaration of nullity by a competent Court or authority, a aggrieved person can take advantage of benefits under DV Act.

From Para 19,

19. In the present case, if according to the respondent, the marriage between him and the appellant was void on account of the previous marriage between the appellant and Rohit Kumar Mishra the respondent ought to have obtained the necessary declaration from the competent court in view of the highly contentious questions raised by the appellant on the aforesaid score. It is only upon a declaration of nullity or annulment of the marriage between the parties by a competent court that any consideration of the question whether the parties had lived in a “relationship in the nature of marriage” would be justified. In the absence of any valid decree of nullity or the necessary declaration the court will have to proceed on the footing
that the relationship between the parties is one of marriage and not in the nature of marriage. We would also like to emphasise that any determination of the validity of the marriage between the parties could have been made only by a competent court in an appropriate proceeding by and between the parties and in compliance with all other requirements of law. Mere production of a marriage certificate issued under Section 13 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 in support of the claimed first marriage of the appellant with Rohit Kumar Mishra was not sufficient for any of the courts, including the High Court, to render a complete and effective decision with regard to the marital status of the parties and that too in a collateral proceeding for maintenance. Consequently, we hold that in the present case until the invalidation of the marriage between the appellant and the respondent is made by a competent court it would only be correct to proceed on the basis that the appellant continues to be the wife of the respondent so as to entitle her to claim all benefits and protection available under the DV Act, 2005.

Deoki Panjhiyara Vs Shashi Bhushan Narayan Azad and Anr on 12 Dec 2012

Citations: [2013 ALLMR CRI SC 1099], [2013 AIR SC 168], [2013 RCR CIVIL SC 2 400], [2013 AIR SC 346], [2013 SCC 2 137], [2013 RCR CRIMINAL SC 1 338], [2012 SCALE 12 282], [2013 CRLJ SC 684], [2012 AIOL 584], [2013 BOMCR CRI SC 1 333], [2012 SLT 9 266], [2013 SCC CIV 1 1019], [2012 SCC ONLINE SC 1035], [2013 GUJ LH 1 208], [2013 CTC 2 232], [2013 ECRN 1 913], [2013 ACR 1 1089], [2013 AD SC 3 59], [2013 AJR 2 133], [2013 AKR 1 615], [2013 ALD CRI 1 469], [2013 ALT CRI 3 70], [2013 ALT CRI 1 472], [2013 DMC SC 1 18], [2013 JLJR 1 198], [2012 JCC 1 502], [2013 JCC 1 508], [2012 JT SC 12 575], [2013 LW 2 60], [2013 LW CRL 1 330], [2013 NCC 1 322], [2013 OLR 1 891], [2013 PLJR 1 172], [2013 MLJ CRL 1 137]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/154350889/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af10e4b0149711415804

https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/deoki-panjhiyara-vs-shashi-bhushan-narayan-azad-anr

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to Deoki Panjhiyara Vs Shashi Bhushan Narayan Azad and Anr HM Act 11 - Void marriages Landmark Case PWDV Act Sec 20 - Maintenance Denied Reportable Judgement or Order | Leave a comment

Lanka Venkateswarlu (D) by LRs Vs State of AP and Ors on 24 Feb 2011

Posted on July 22, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Supreme Court held as follows,

From Para 26,

26. We are at a loss to fathom any logic or rationale, which could have impelled the High Court to condone the delay after holding the same to be unjustifiable. The concepts such as “liberal approach”, “justice oriented approach”, “substantial justice” can not be employed to jettison the substantial law of limitation. Especially, in cases where the Court concludes that there is no justification for the delay. In our opinion, the approach adopted by the High Court tends to show the absence of judicial balance and restraint, which a Judge is required to maintain whilst adjudicating any lis between the
parties. We are rather pained to notice that in this case, not being satisfied with the use of mere intemperate language, the High Court resorted to blatant sarcasms. The use of unduly strong intemperate or extravagant language in a judgment has been repeatedly disapproved by this Court in a number of cases. Whilst considering applications for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Courts do not enjoy unlimited and unbridled discretionary powers. All discretionary powers, especially judicial powers, have to be exercised within reasonable bounds, known to the law. The discretion has to be exercised in a systematic manner informed by reason. Whims or fancies; prejudices or predilections can not and should not form the basis of exercising discretionary powers.


Citations: [2011 SCALE 2 703], [2011 AIR SC 1199], [2011 AIR SC 1459], [2011 SUPREME 2 174], [2011 AIOL 144], [2011 SLT 2 378], [2011 BOMCR SC 5 857], [2011 JT 2 540], [2011 SCC 4 363], [2011 MHLJ SC 4 104], [2011 RCR CIVIL SC 2 880], [2011 ALR 86 59], [2011 AWC SC 3 2295], [2011 SCSUPPL CHN 2 130], [2011 CLT SC 112 152], [2011 KCCR SN 2 124], [2011 LW 3 26], [2011 SCR 3 2172909 CIVIL APPEAL NO OF 2913 2005], [2011 BOMCR 5 857], [2011 KCCRSN 2 124], [2011 RCR CIVIL 2 880], [2011 AIR SCW 1459]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/912526/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af08e4b0149711415652

https://vlex.in/vid/c-no-002909-002913-852352762

Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Lanka Venkateswarlu (D) by LRs Vs State of AP and Ors Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Limitation Act 1963 Sec 5 - Extension of prescribed period in certain cases Reportable Judgement or Order | Leave a comment

Dr. Ramkeshwar Singh Vs Sheela Singh on 13 Jul 2022

Posted on July 18, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of High Court of Chhattisgarh held that the wife committed mental cruelty upon husband and therefore granted divorce to husband. But Court also ordered payment Rs.15,000/- per month to wife as alimony.

From Para 24,

24. The appellant is a Doctor and as stated during the course of hearing, the respondent wife is a private teacher. Therefore, facing a criminal case would always castigate a stigma in the Society. The report u/s 498-A of the IPC cannot be used as a tool to teach a lesson to the family members of the husband as it may adversely affect the future prospects of a young professional and it may take long time to fill up the gap. Therefore, we are of the opinion that false accusations made by the wife against the entire family members under section 498-A would amount to mental cruelty and such conduct of respondent wife which inflicts upon the appellant husband such mental pain and suffering would make it not possible for her to live with the appellant husband.

Dr. Ramkeshwar Singh Vs Sheela Singh on 13 Jul 2022

Dr. Ramkeshwar Singh Vs Sheela Singh on 13 Jul 2022

 

Posted in High Court of Chhattisgarh Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Divorce Granted to Husband Dr. Ramkeshwar Singh Vs Sheela Singh HM Act - Mental Cruelty Proved HM Act 13 - Divorce Granted to Husband on Acquittal from IPC 498A case HM Act 25 – Permanent Alimony Allowed Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage Mental Cruelty Reportable Judgement or Order | 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
andhrafact మన ఆంధ్ర @andhrafact ·
23h

వాడే🃏vs వీడు🧛‍♂️=సిగ్గుమాలిన అపరిచుతుడు

రాష్ట్ర మద్య నీళ్లున్న చోట WASHINGTONకడతా,center ఇవ్వదు అయినా కడతా.నా బుర్రలో వచ్చే ఆలోచనతో కడతా.CBN వల్ల కాదు ఎట్లా చెయ్యాలో ACCENTUREతో 10 సిట్టింగు వేసా,ఇదిగో డిటైల్డ్ plan.రాజధాని RE హంగామాతో 2BILLION$ తెస్తా🧛‍♂️

vs

రాజధాని అంటే ఏంటి?🃏

Reply on Twitter 2062217009140576691 Retweet on Twitter 2062217009140576691 37 Like on Twitter 2062217009140576691 77 X 2062217009140576691
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
narendramodi Narendra Modi @narendramodi ·
3 Jun

Delighted to meet the Chairman of the Rastriya Swatantra Party of Nepal Mr. Rabi Lamichhane. I welcome and fully share his desire to work closely together for a shared and prosperous future.

Nepal is a priority partner under our Neighbourhood First policy and we look forward to

Reply on Twitter 2062085139031810119 Retweet on Twitter 2062085139031810119 4893 Like on Twitter 2062085139031810119 36952 X 2062085139031810119
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
pradip103 Pradeep Bhandari(प्रदीप भंडारी)🇮🇳 @pradip103 ·
9h

CONGRESS ALLOWS SHARIA COMPLIANT GYM IN KERALA!

Congress’ win in Kerala has ensured one thing : IUML gets a free hand and Congress bends itself to the diktats of Muslim League.

Kerala’s so-called ‘Islam-friendly gym’ mandates No music. Gender segregation. Mandatory religious

Reply on Twitter 2062415901740470707 Retweet on Twitter 2062415901740470707 173 Like on Twitter 2062415901740470707 410 X 2062415901740470707
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
ani ANI @ani ·
2 Jun

#WATCH | Maharashtra: The passing out parade at the Combat Army Aviation Training School in Nashik, concluded on an emotional note for a couple as Captain Bharat Bhardwaj proposed marriage to his partner.

Reply on Twitter 2061739907320860704 Retweet on Twitter 2061739907320860704 858 Like on Twitter 2061739907320860704 14162 X 2061739907320860704
Load More

Recent Posts

  • Are Offices of Dowry Prohibition Officers in AP designated as Police Stations? June 3, 2026
  • Pune Bar Association Vs Union of India on 22 May 2026 June 2, 2026
  • Chidurala Shyamsubder Vs State of Telangana on 27 Aug 2018 May 28, 2026
  • Birendra Kumar Tiwari Vs Neetu Tiwari on 07 Dec 2022 May 27, 2026
  • Parvinder Singh Khurana Vs Enforcement of Directorate on 19 May 2026 May 26, 2026

Most Read Posts

  • Reply to Section 41A CrPC Notice – Format with Legal Explanation (4,833 views)
  • Anu Aggarwal Vs Sushant Aggarwal on 20 Jan 2026 (3,363 views)
  • Umme Farva Vs State of U.P. and Anr on 14 Jan 2026 (3,191 views)
  • Charge Sheet and Final Report Explained (2,438 views)
  • Jinesh CR Vs Aswathy PR on 19 Nov 2025 (2,125 views)
  • Geddam Jhansi and Anr Vs State of Telangana and Anr on 07 Feb 2025 (2,089 views)
  • Regular Bail Application Format (Section 437/439 CrPC) (1,997 views)
  • Neha Lal Vs Abhishek Kumar on 20 Jan 2026 (1,877 views)
  • Arrest Procedure in 498A cases after Arnesh Kumar (1,783 views)
  • Discharge Application Format in 498A Case – Draft, Procedure & Sample Template (1,571 views)

Tags

Reportable Judgement or Order (433)2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision (411)Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes (381)Landmark Case (381)1-Judge Bench Decision (361)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 (61)Reprimands or Setbacks to YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh (49)Summary Post (47)CrPC 482 - Quash (43)HM Act 13 - Divorce Granted to Husband (42)Legal Terrorism (41)Not Authentic copy hence to be replaced (40)Divorce granted on Cruelty ground (40)

Categories

Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification (752)Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments (327)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 (73)High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification (70)High Court of Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification (61)LLB Study Material (58)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 (46)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 Telangana Judgment or Order or Notification (27)

Recent Comments

  • 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)
  • ShadesOfKnife on Lifecycle Stages of a Section 498A IPC Case

Archives of SoK

  • June 2026 (2)
  • 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

  • Cloudflare Storage Maintenance June 15, 2026
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Jun 15, 12:00 - 13:00 UTC May 28, 22:16 UTC Scheduled - Cloudflare has scheduled maintenance for our backend storage systems. Services will continue to operate normally, but customers will be unable to create/delete/modify tunnels, routes, hostname routes, virtual networks, devices and tunnel configurations via the Dashboard or the public […]
  • Cloudflare Storage Maintenance June 4, 2026
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Jun 4, 12:00 - 13:00 UTC May 21, 00:41 UTC Scheduled - Cloudflare has scheduled maintenance for our backend storage systems. Services will continue to operate normally, customers will be unable to modify configurations via the Dashboard or the public API for a period of up to 3 minutes. This […]
  • Network Congestion in Frankfurt June 4, 2026
    Jun 4, 06:59 UTC Resolved - Cloudflare observed network congestion in Frankfurt from 05:53 UTC to 06:08 UTC. The issue is now resolved.

RSS List of Spam Server IPs from Project Honeypot

  • 193.193.237.158 | SD June 3, 2026
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 1,352 | First: 2025-11-25 | Last: 2026-06-03
  • 158.94.211.154 | S June 3, 2026
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 987 | First: 2026-01-28 | Last: 2026-06-03
  • 45.164.196.232 | S June 3, 2026
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 5 | First: 2026-06-03 | Last: 2026-06-03
Owned and Operated by Advocate Sandeep Pamarati
Proudly powered by WordPress
Theme: Flint by Star Verte LLC

Bad Behavior has blocked 599 access attempts in the last 7 days.

pixel