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”]
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
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
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, 2016Now, read the appeals filed by both husband (here) and wife (here). Entire Index is here.
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
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.
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.
Madhala Sujatha Vs Madhala Srinivasulu on 8 June, 2015PW1 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.
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
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
In this case, the Husband has not filed a Counter in response to DV Case on him by his Knife but did a namesake cross-examination. Hon’ble Court has granted Maintenance, Residential and Compensation reliefs as there was no challenge made to the allegations of Knife.
Kandula Lakshmi Vs Kandula Raghava Rao on 22 December, 2015
Bad Behavior has blocked 934 access attempts in the last 7 days.
