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

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 Sec 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 25 – Permanent Alimony Allowed HM Act Sec 13 - Divorce Granted to Husband on Acquittal from IPC 498A case Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage Mental Cruelty Reportable Judgement or Order | Leave a comment

State of U.P Vs Santosh Kumar and Ors on 3 Sep 2009

Posted on June 18, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A decision from the erudite pen of Justice Dalveer Bhandari ji… clearly says, if demand for dowry is satisfied, such act of dowry giver constitutes an offence under section 3 of DP Act.

From Para 40,

40. Section 4 of the Dowry Act deals with penalty for demanding dowry, directly or indirectly, from the parents or other relatives or guardian of a bride or bridegroom, as the case may be. The object of section 4 is to discourage the very demand for property or valuable security as consideration for a
marriage between the parties thereto. Section 4 prohibits the demand for ‘giving’ property or valuable security which demand, if satisfied, would constitute an offence under section 3 read with section 2 of the Act.

State of U.P Vs Santosh Kumar and Ors on 3 Sep 2009

Citations: [2009 AIR SC 2687], [2009 SCC 9 626], [2010 MWN CR 1 39], [2009 AIOL 1115], [2009 ANJ SC 2 350], [2009 JT 11 592], [2009 SCALE 12 269], [2010 SCC CRI 1 88], [2009 SCR 14 106], [2009 SUPREME 6 448], [2010 ECRN SC 1 196], [2010 MLJ CRL 1 679], [2010 ALL LJ 1 180]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/521213/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609aecee4b0149711414da5

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision DP Act 3 - Giving Abeting to Give Taking Abeting to Take are offences DP Act 4 - Penalty for Demanding Dowry Justice Dalveer Bhandari Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes PIL - Dowry Givers should be Prosecuted Reportable Judgement or Order State of U.P Vs Santosh Kumar and Ors | 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
thebetterindia

The Better India

Verified account @thebetterindia ·
9 Oct

What can a tiny green alga teach us about the human brain?

In 2001, Indian researcher Suneel Kateriya was working in a German laboratory, trying to understand how a single-celled alga senses light.

His search led to the discovery of light-sensitive proteins that would help

Reply on Twitter 2108422816089718799 Retweet on Twitter 2108422816089718799 5 Like on Twitter 2108422816089718799 35 X 2108422816089718799
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
jyotikarma7

JyotiKarma🚩🇮🇳

Verified account @jyotikarma7 ·
9 Oct

Navratri ke 9 din ...Devi's 9 roop, depicted so well!

Reply on Twitter 2108417383584891282 Retweet on Twitter 2108417383584891282 199 Like on Twitter 2108417383584891282 1018 X 2108417383584891282
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
shree_2_2

श्री

Verified account @shree_2_2 ·
9 Oct

Action plan for nationalists 🇮🇳

Reply on Twitter 2108580123264135317 Retweet on Twitter 2108580123264135317 1436 Like on Twitter 2108580123264135317 4819 X 2108580123264135317
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
himantabiswa

Himanta Biswa Sarma

Verified account @himantabiswa ·
9 Oct

Maa will steer Bharat forward, come what may.

Reply on Twitter 2108399555129544844 Retweet on Twitter 2108399555129544844 4756 Like on Twitter 2108399555129544844 33872 X 2108399555129544844

Recent Posts

  • When did Anantapur become Ananthapuramu? October 9, 2026
  • Supreme Court: PF and employee share-plan deductions cannot shrink the income used to assess child maintenance September 29, 2026
  • Pradeep Ram Vs State of Jharkhand and Anr on 1 Jul 2019 September 24, 2026
  • Video Conferencing Links of District Judiciary of Andhra Pradesh September 24, 2026
  • Practical Solutions Inc Vs State of Telangana and Ors on 19 Jan 2026 September 24, 2026

Most Read Posts

  • How Courts Quash Omnibus Allegations in Matrimonial FIRs - Case Study (1,592 views)
  • Parvinder Singh Khurana Vs Enforcement of Directorate on 19 May 2026 (1,201 views)
  • Application for Exemption from Personal Appearance During Investigation – Format, Procedure & Sample Draft (1,090 views)
  • Application for Modification of Bail Conditions – Format, Procedure & Sample Draft (965 views)
  • Myth vs Reality: Bail in 498A Cases – Legal Position Explained (942 views)
  • Exemption Application Under Section 205 CrPC – Format, Procedure & Sample Draft (906 views)
  • Representation for Deletion of Name from FIR – Format, Procedure & Sample Draft (896 views)
  • Pune Bar Association Vs Union of India on 22 May 2026 (823 views)
  • Life Cycle Stages of a Criminal Writ Petition Before a High Court (780 views)
  • Dr. Garima Dubey and Ors Vs Dr. Saurabh Anand Dubey on 21 Apr 2026 - Judgement Summary (740 views)

Tags

Reportable Judgement or Order (446)2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision (431)Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes (389)Landmark Case (387)1-Judge Bench Decision (376)Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to (302)Work-In-Progress Article (215)3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision (102)Sandeep Pamarati (92)Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty (80)Issued or Recommended Guidelines or Directions or Protocols to be followed (72)Perjury Under Section 340 CrPC (71)Absurd Or After Thought Or Baseless Or False Or General Or Inherently Improbable Or Improved Or UnSpecific Or Omnibus Or Vague Allegations (62)Reprimands or Setbacks to YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh (49)Summary Post (47)CrPC 482 - Quash (44)CrPC 125 or BNSS 144 - Order for Maintenance of Wives Children and Parents (43)Abuse Or Misuse of Process of Court (43)HM Act Sec 13 - Divorce Granted to Husband (42)Divorce Granted on Cruelty ground (42)

Categories

Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification (767)Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments (329)High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (190)High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification (167)High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification (112)High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification (95)Legal Procedure (85)High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification (71)High Court of Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification (63)LLB Study Material (60)General Study Material (56)Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications (54)High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification (53)High Court of Kerala Judgment or Order or Notification (48)Judicial Activism (for Public Benefit) (47)Prakasam DV Cases (46)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 Telangana Judgment or Order or Notification (29)High Court of Calcutta Judgment or Order or Notification (28)

Recent Comments

  • ShadesOfKnife on How to Challenge Ex Parte Orders in Criminal and Matrimonial Proceedings – Legal Remedies
  • pradeep jain on How to Challenge Ex Parte Orders in Criminal and Matrimonial Proceedings – Legal Remedies
  • Lawyer Sonia on Regular Bail Application Format (Section 437/439 CrPC)
  • vinod gupta on Reply to Section 41A CrPC Notice – Format with Legal Explanation
  • eCourts India on Compromise-Based Quashing in Matrimonial Cases – Complete Legal Strategy

Archives of SoK

  • October 2026 (1)
  • September 2026 (13)
  • August 2026 (6)
  • July 2026 (19)
  • June 2026 (19)
  • 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 feed: Cloudflare Status Cloudflare Status

  • KTM (Kathmandu) on 2026-11-02 November 2, 2026
    Oct 8, 16:40 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in KTM (Kathmandu) datacenter between 2026-11-02 21:00 and 2026-11-03 01:00 UTC. Traffic might be re-routed from this location, hence there is a possibility of a slight increase in latency during this maintenance window for end-users in the affected region. For PNI / CNI customers […]
    Cloudflare Status

RSS feed: List of Spam Server IPs from Project Honeypot List of Spam Server IPs from Project Honeypot

  • 219.156.105.231 | S October 10, 2026
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 11 | First: 2026-10-09 | Last: 2026-10-10
Owned and Operated by Advocate Sandeep Pamarati and Advocate Suprajaa Rajan
Proudly powered by WordPress
Theme: Flint by Star Verte LLC

Bad Behavior has blocked 607 access attempts in the last 7 days.

pixel