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: PWDV Act Sec 22 – Compensation Granted

Dr.XXXXX Vs Dr.XXXXX on 16 Jun 2020

Posted on July 4, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

Look at the perversity of the Judgment. Bad cross-examination led to Part allowance of this DV case.

And a free copy of Judgment only to petitioner/wife. A copy for Husband? Sec 24 of the PWDV Act gone to dogs…

Dr.XXXXX Vs Dr. XXXXX on 16 Jun 2020

Index of their cases is here.

Posted in District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Dr.XXXXX Vs Dr.XXXXX Misinterpretation of Earlier Judgment or Settle Principle of Law or Per Incuriam Perverse Order/Judgment PWDV Act Sec 20 - Maintenance Granted PWDV Act Sec 22 - Compensation Granted | Leave a comment

T.V.Vyshnavi Vs N.Govindaraj on 12 January, 2017

Posted on November 28, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

A new story to be heard in this ex parte order. Protection, Maintenance and Compensation orders are granted.

T.V.Vyshnavi Vs N.Govindaraj on 12 January, 2017

[related_posts_by_tax title=”5 Recently Updated Posts, Similar or Related To Above Post” orderby=”post_modified” posts_per_page=”5″ show_date=”true”]

Posted in Chittor DV Cases | Tagged Ex Parte Order PWDV Act Sec 18 - Protection Order Granted PWDV Act Sec 20 - Maintenance Granted PWDV Act Sec 22 - Compensation Granted T.V.Vyshnavi Vs N.Govindaraj | Leave a comment

Shaik Sahanaj Begum Vs Shaik Mohammed Rafi on 29 October, 2015

Posted on November 6, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Except for a paltry maintenance and residence order, rest of the beggings are dismissed by the Hon’ble Court in this DV Case.

Shaik Sahanaj Begum Vs Shaik Mohammed Rafi on 29 October, 2015

 

Posted in Anantapur DV Cases | Tagged PWDV Act Sec 18 - Protection Order Denied PWDV Act Sec 19 - Residential Order (Rent) Granted PWDV Act Sec 20 - Maintenance Granted PWDV Act Sec 21 - Custody Denied PWDV Act Sec 22 - Compensation Granted Shaik Sahanaj Begum Vs Shaik Mohammed Rafi | Leave a comment

Harijana Thodugu Mannala Savithramma Vs Harijana Thodugu Mannala Vijaya Simha on 17 February, 2012

Posted on November 4, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Economic abuse is established in this DV case from Anantapur DV Cases Series. Gross misuse of power or glorified ineptness towards differentiating between a Civil Suit for property and giving Residence (not property) Order under DV Act.

Harijana Thodugu Mannala Savithramma Vs Harijana Thodugu Mannala Vijaya Simha on 17 February, 2012

 

Posted in Anantapur DV Cases | Tagged Economic Abuce under DV Act Harijana Thodugu Mannala Savithramma Vs Harijana Thodugu Mannala Vijaya Simha PWDV Act Sec 18 - Protection Order Granted PWDV Act Sec 19 - Residential Order (Share in Property) Granted PWDV Act Sec 22 - Compensation Granted Right to Residence in InLaws property | Leave a comment

Kunapureddy Swarna Kumari Vs Kunapureddy @ Nookala Shanka Balaji Naidu on 12 August, 2016

Posted on July 20, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

I am going to start the first of the DV cases from West Godavari district with this case which resulted in a key judgment from Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein it was held that courts can allow amendments to the complaint so as to avoid multiplicity of cases and remove infirmities. Read it here. Later on, on 12 August, 2016, the trial court allowed some reliefs in this DV Case.

See the Bullshit reasoning given by magistrate

Admittedly, the parents of P.W.1 have no indigent status and they are financially stable. In such a case, it is likely that the parents of P.W.1 have paid the dowry amount to R.W.1 at the time of marriage. Dowry system is rampant in the Indian society even umpteen number of legislations. Therefore, the probability and plausibility factor coupled with the verbal testimony of P.W.1 impels the court to place implicit reliance upon the testimony of P.W.1 regardless of documentary evidence.

Some more BS sprinkled herein Para 9,

The substantial revelation from para 4 of the counter of R.W.1 is that “the complainant is a kondakapu which is schedule tribe by caste and with a lenient view the respondent married the complainant without taking dowry amount”. This material drives home the message that R.W.1 married P.W.1 on his own volition without any compulsion. On the other hand, it is not the case of the R.W.1 that P.W.1 disguised her caste. In such a case as to why R.W.1 averred in the counter that P.W.1 is a scheduled tribe by caste. In this context, the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the respondent has workable force and this averment is made in the counter with intent to inflict psychological trauma, sorrow, agony and pain to P.W.1.

Just because RCR under Section 9 of HMA is not filed, judge thinks offer of husband to continue marital ties if knife comes back, is highly pretentious and fake.

It is specifically pleaded in para 20 of the counter that R.W.1 would accord warm welcome to P.W.1, if she comes and joins him. In this context, the counsel for the respondent questioned P.W.1 whether she is willing to join R.W.1, on which she emphatically denied. If in truth R.W.1 has any transparent honesty and righteousness to continue the marital tie without snapping, he would have invoked the coercive provision as envisaged under section 9 of Hindu Marriages Act i.e., for restitution of conjugal rights, however R.W.1 is very much indifferent and inactive and did not offer any solemn explanation as to why he failed to resort to the provisions of section 9 of Hindu Marriages Act. This material makes me to understand that the offer of R.W.1 to continue the marital bond with P.W.1 is highly pretentious and fake.

In contrary, read this BS, when it was questioned, why knife didn’t file IPC 498A criminal case from Para 17 and 18,

The third limb of the argument canvassed by the learned counsel for the respondent is that, if in truth P.W.1 suffered low marital happiness on account of cruelty alleged to have been perpetrated by the respondent, surely she would have set the criminal machinery in motion under section 498-A IPC and this circumstance clearly points out that P.W.1 is guilty of matrimonial misconduct. In this contextual facts, regard must be had to the material forth came from the cross examination of R.W.1. During cross examination R.W.1 affirms that “He deposed in O.P. No.22/2010 on the file of Principal Senior Civil Judge’s Court that P.W.1 is tradition ridden woman and always prays the almighty and she is a big devotee“.

In general the woman who are orthodox and have a firm belief over traditions and old customs may not turn impulsive and aggressive and may not resort to criminals proceedings against their husbands believing that their family reputation will be marred irretrievably and irreplaceably. This material gives some formidable feedback to the court that P.W.1 is highly traditional lady and has traditional approach towards life and due to which reason she might not have lodged complaint against the respondent under section 498-A IPC.

One rule for husband and another philosophy for knife.

Another gem of dogshit here from Para 19. Enjoy…

P.W.1 candidly admits in the cross examination that “ I filed application under section 13 of Hindu marriages Act for seeking the dissolution of marriage on the file of Principle Senior Civil Judge, Eluru and the same was ended in dismissal”. In the normal scheme of things, no married woman who have grown up and marriageable children would not venture to walkout from the marriage and gets her marital life ruined, unless the home atmosphere in the matrimony is uncongenial. This material makes me cognizant that R.W.1 resorted to domestic violence in the shared household.

No application of mind, why this S13 application is dismissed!!!

From Para 20, this is the observation: From this material, it appeals to me that P.W.1 is very sensitive and gullible lady.

Read Para 23 for more fun-filled entertainment.

Kunapureddy Swarna Kumari Vs Kunapureddy @ Nookala Shanka Balaji Naidu on 12 August, 2016

Now, read the appeals filed by both husband (here) and wife (here). Entire Index is here.

Posted in West Godavari DV Cases | Tagged Baseless or Convoluted Judgment Kunapureddy Swarna Kumari Vs Kunapureddy @ Nookala Shanka Balaji Naidu No Territorial Jurisdiction PWDV Act Sec 18 - Protection Order Granted PWDV Act Sec 20 - Maintenance From Date of Order PWDV Act Sec 20 - Maintenance Granted PWDV Act Sec 22 - Compensation Granted | Leave a comment

Ganipineni Sudharani Vs Ganipineni KrishnaMohan on 2 May, 2017

Posted on July 8, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Here is another BS judgment from same justice. Blatant misinterpretation of an earlier Supreme Court order to cause advantage to the party of Knife. Either by ignorance or for kickbacks received. God Knows

Shame on him.

 

Ganipineni Sudharani Vs Ganipineni KrishnaMohan on 2 May, 2017
Posted in Prakasam DV Cases | Tagged Ganipineni Sudharani Vs Ganipineni KrishnaMohan Magistrate Sravan Kumar Misinterpretation of Earlier Judgment or Settle Principle of Law or Per Incuriam PWDV Act Sec 18 - Protection Order Granted PWDV Act Sec 19 - Residential Order (Rent) Granted PWDV Act Sec 20 - Maintenance Granted PWDV Act Sec 22 - Compensation Granted | 2 Comments

Ravuri Venkata Lakshmi Mahathi Vs Ravuri Venkata Durga Butchi Rajeswararao on 22 April, 2016

Posted on July 2, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Read this judgment to understand how the biased judges give liberal reliefs using gender-biased laws such as PWDV Act. In the process wrongly interpret the Delhi High Court judgment, wherein in reality High Court has declined giving maintenance to unscrupulous knife, our judge in this present case understood and interpreted it totally wrongly and to suit the Knife.

 

Ravuri Venkata Lakshmi Mahathi Vs Ravuri Venkata Durga Butchi Rajeswararao on 22 April, 2016

The judgment cited in this order and wrongly interpreted is available here.

Posted in Prakasam DV Cases | Tagged Magistrate Sravan Kumar Misinterpretation of Earlier Judgment or Settle Principle of Law or Per Incuriam PWDV Act Sec 18 - Protection Order Granted PWDV Act Sec 20 - Maintenance Granted PWDV Act Sec 22 - Compensation Granted Ravuri Venkata Lakshmi Mahathi Vs Ravuri Venkata Durga Butchi Rajeswararao | Leave a comment

Madhala Sujatha Vs Madhala Srinivasulu on 8 June, 2015

Posted on July 1, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Interesting points in this case of DV.

PW1 has deposed in her chief examination that at the time of her marriage her parents have given cash of Rs.1,81,000/- and gold ornaments weighing 20 sovereigns to the respondent no.1. PW1 has stated during the course of her cross-examination that the said cash and gold ornaments were handed over to the respondents at their(petitioner) house about 10 days prior to her marriage. PW2 has stated during the course of his cross-examination that the parents of PW1 have given cash of Rs.1,81,000/-, gold ornaments weighing 21 sovereigns to RW1 and his parents at the time performing marriage of PW1 and RW1. Therefore, there is inconsistency in the evidence of PW1 itself and also in the evidence of PW1 and PW2 regarding the time and occasion of presentation of alleged dowry to RW1 and his parents by her parents.

 

There is no evidence of PW1 before this Court that any cash of Rs.20,000/- was given to the respondents for purchasing cloths.

 

PW1 has also stated during the course of her cross-examination that there are bills to show that the gold ornaments weighing 21 sovereigns that were presented to the respondents were purchased by her parents. The alleged bills are not produced before this Court to show that that the alleged gold ornaments were purchased by the parents of PW1 immediately, prior to or at the time of marriage of PW1 with RW1. The parents of PW1 are not even examined on the side of the petitioner to prove the alleged presentation of dowry of cash and gold ornaments to RW1 and
his parents. The evidence of PW2 also do not reveal that the alleged dowry was presented by the parents of PW1 to RW1 and his parents in his presence. Therefore, it is held that the petitioner has failed to substantiate her contention that the alleged dowry was presented by her parents to RW1 and his parents in her marriage.

Madhala Sujatha Vs Madhala Srinivasulu on 8 June, 2015
Posted in Prakasam DV Cases | Tagged Madhala Sujatha Vs Madhala Srinivasulu PWDV Act Sec 18 - Protection Order Granted PWDV Act Sec 20 - Maintenance Granted PWDV Act Sec 22 - Compensation Granted | Leave a comment

Shaik Shakheela Vs Shaik Mahamad Rafi on 22 September, 2017

Posted on July 1, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This is another ex parte order in the DV Case. Since there is no challenge to the averments of the Knife in the petition, Judge liberally allows reliefs.

 

Shaik Shakheela Vs Shaik Mahamad Rafi on 22 September, 2017
Posted in Prakasam DV Cases | Tagged Ex Parte Order PWDV Act Sec 18 - Protection Order Granted PWDV Act Sec 19 - Residential Order (Rent) Granted PWDV Act Sec 20 - Maintenance Granted PWDV Act Sec 22 - Compensation Granted Shaik Shakheela Vs Shaik Mahamad Rafi | Leave a comment

Tagaram Raja Kumari Vs Cherukuri Aruna Kumar on 20 January, 2015

Posted on June 29, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Hon’ble court in this judgment ordered monthly maintenance, protection order, residence order, compensation and also litigation costs.

From Para 10,

The respondents dispute the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent no.1 and the status of the petitioner as the legally wedded wife of the respondent no.1. No doubt the petitioner did not produce any marriage certificate issued by the authorities of Poleramma temple, Nalgonda, and admittedly PW2 did not attend their marriage, however, the petition under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, is maintainable even if a woman has failed to prove that she is the legally wedded wife of the man, provided she shows a domestic relationship existed between them, and that she had lived together along with the man in the shared house hold. Such evidence is given by PW1 before this Court, and that there is no evidence in rebuttal. The evidence of PW1 regarding domestic relationship with respondent no.1 in the shared household and her subjection to domestic violence by the respondents is also corroborated with the evidence of PW2, her paternal grandfather, and the said testimonies of PW1 and PW2 is also not destroyed in material particulars by the respondents during the course of their cross-examination except giving suggestions that were denied by them. When the respondents denies the relationship itself, it can be used as one of the circumstances against them for the proof of domestic violence. The evidence of PW1 and PW2 prove that the petitioner was neglected by the respondents and subjected to domestic violence for dowry. This point is answered accordingly in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.

 

Tagaram Raja Kumari Vs Cherukuri Aruna Kumar on 20 January, 2015

Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in

Posted in Prakasam DV Cases | Tagged PWDV Act Sec 12 - DV Case Proved And Reliefs Granted PWDV Act Sec 18 - Protection Order Granted PWDV Act Sec 19 - Residential Order (Rent) Granted PWDV Act Sec 20 - Maintenance Granted PWDV Act Sec 22 - Compensation Granted Tagaram Raja Kumari Vs Cherukuri Aruna Kumar | Leave a comment

Post navigation

  • Older 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
yashtdp_ Yash @yashtdp_ ·
20h

ఆడపడుచుల మీద తప్పుడు కూతలు కూస్తే ఆ స్రృష్టి నియమం ఇదే🔥🔥....

Reply on Twitter 1942393864603722028 Retweet on Twitter 1942393864603722028 28 Like on Twitter 1942393864603722028 98 X 1942393864603722028
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
elonmusk Elon Musk @elonmusk ·
7 Jul

What’s the time? Oh look, it’s no-one-has-been-arrested-o’clock again …

Reply on Twitter 1942132189229162960 Retweet on Twitter 1942132189229162960 81817 Like on Twitter 1942132189229162960 531283 X 1942132189229162960
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
moment_mirthful Mirthful Moments @moment_mirthful ·
7 Jul

@elonmusk Today's reality

Reply on Twitter 1942148865307926982 Retweet on Twitter 1942148865307926982 63 Like on Twitter 1942148865307926982 695 X 1942148865307926982
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
rkgarimella ramakrishna @rkgarimella ·
7 Jul

.@cbn_updates1 @Amaravati_CBN @AP_CRDANews @SriKrishnaLavu @JSP_Guntur @hudcolimited @NRITDPEurope @NriTDPCanada @DSGRAJU1 @AdvocateAsr @SandeepPamarati @DhanekulaL @appugog @AluriRaga @AluriRames39301 @ChinathalliM @TheSrujanRaJ @TheOfficialSBI @UnionBankTweets @aiboc_in @JaiTDP

Reply on Twitter 1942096552383975691 Retweet on Twitter 1942096552383975691 2 Like on Twitter 1942096552383975691 2 X 1942096552383975691
Load More

Recent Posts

  • Cases where Perjury Proceedings were initiated July 3, 2025
  • Dara Lakshmi Narayana and 6 Ors Vs State of Telangana and Anr on 10 Dec 2024 June 27, 2025
  • Mohammad Wajid and Anr Vs State of U.P. and Ors on 08 Aug 2023 June 26, 2025
  • Ajay Rajendra Khare and Ors Vs State of Maharashtra on 10 Jun 2025 June 26, 2025
  • BSA Sec 128 – Communications during marriage June 25, 2025

Most Read Posts

  • Vishal Shah Vs Monalisha Gupta and Ors on 20 Feb 2025 (2,904 views)
  • Mudireddy Divya Vs Sulkti Sivarama Reddy on 26 Mar 2025 (2,376 views)
  • Sukhdev Singh Vs Sukhbir Kaur on 12 Feb 2025 (2,253 views)
  • Madan Kumar Satpathy Vs Priyadarshini Pati on 07 Feb 2025 (1,745 views)
  • Megha Khetrapal Vs Rajat Kapoor on 19 Mar 2025 (1,590 views)
  • Om Prakash Ambadkar Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors on 16 Jan 2025 (1,326 views)
  • Ivan Rathinam Vs Milan Joseph on 28 Jan 2025 (1,150 views)
  • Saikat Das Vs State of West Bengal and Anr on 27 Mar 2025 (959 views)
  • Akkala Rami Reddy Vs State of AP and Anr on 30 Apr 2025 (913 views)
  • Roopa Soni Vs Kamal Narayan Soni on 06 Sep 2023 (817 views)

Tags

Reportable Judgement or Order (405)2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision (375)Landmark Case (369)Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes (367)1-Judge Bench Decision (294)Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to (274)Work-In-Progress Article (216)3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision (97)Sandeep Pamarati (93)Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty (77)Issued or Recommended Guidelines or Directions or Protocols to be followed (68)Perjury Under 340 CrPC (60)Absurd Or After Thought Or Baseless Or False Or General Or Inherently Improbable Or Improved Or UnSpecific Or Omnibus Or Vague Allegations (58)Reprimands or Setbacks to YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh (49)Summary Post (44)HM Act 13 - Divorce Granted to Husband (42)Legal Terrorism (41)Not Authentic copy hence to be replaced (40)CrPC 482 - Quash (39)Divorce granted on Cruelty ground (39)

Categories

Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification (718)Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments (319)High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (179)High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification (141)High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification (107)High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification (86)High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification (66)General Study Material (55)Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications (50)High Court of Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification (50)High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification (50)Prakasam DV Cases (46)LLB Study Material (46)District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification (43)Judicial Activism (for Public Benefit) (42)High Court of Kerala Judgment or Order or Notification (39)High Court of Madhya Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (36)High Court of Gujarat Judgment or Order or Notification (28)High Court of Telangana Judgment or Order or Notification (26)High Court of Calcutta Judgment or Order or Notification (23)

Recent Comments

  • Risha Bhatnagar on Pitchika Lakshmi Vs Pichika Chenna Mallikaharjuana Rao on 24 Dec 2012
  • ShadesOfKnife on Index of all Summary Case Law Pages on Shades of Knife
  • kanwal Kishore Girdhar on Index of all Summary Case Law Pages on Shades of Knife
  • SUBHASH KUMAR BANSAL on Sukhdev Singh Vs Sukhbir Kaur on 12 Feb 2025
  • ShadesOfKnife on Syed Nazim Husain Vs Additional Principal Judge Family Court & Anr on 9 January, 2003

Archives of SoK

  • July 2025 (1)
  • 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

  • CGK (Jakarta) on 2025-07-16 July 16, 2025
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Jul 16, 19:00 - 23:00 UTCJul 3, 06:02 UTCUpdate - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in CGK (Jakarta) datacenter on 2025-07-16 between 19:00 and 23:00 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 […]
  • SOF (Sofia) on 2025-07-15 July 15, 2025
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Jul 15, 01:00 - 04:00 UTCJul 2, 14:35 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in SOF (Sofia) datacenter on 2025-07-15 between 01:00 and 04:00 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 […]
  • TPA (Tampa) on 2025-07-14 July 14, 2025
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Jul 14, 14:00 - 19:00 UTCJul 8, 21:25 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in TPA (Tampa) datacenter on 2025-07-14 between 14:00 and 19:00 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 […]

RSS List of Spam Server IPs from Project Honeypot

  • 103.45.247.106 | S July 8, 2025
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 2 | First: 2025-07-08 | Last: 2025-07-08
  • 190.247.227.74 | SD July 8, 2025
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 2,295 | First: 2018-09-28 | Last: 2025-07-08
  • 23.155.184.37 | SD July 8, 2025
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 1,368 | First: 2025-05-28 | Last: 2025-07-08
Owned and Operated by Advocate Sandeep Pamarati
Proudly powered by WordPress
Theme: Flint by Star Verte LLC

Bad Behavior has blocked 2310 access attempts in the last 7 days.

pixel