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: PIL – CrPC 125 or BNSS 144 Must Go From Statute Book

Amit Agarwal and others Vs Sanjay Aggarwal and others on 31 May, 2016

Posted on December 26, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

In this judgment, Punjab & Haryana HC held that “Complaint under DV Act not maintainable after divorce”.

Amit Agarwal and others Vs Sanjay Aggarwal and others on 31 May, 2016

Citations: [

Other Source links:


Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, 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 High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Amit Agarwal and others Vs Sanjay Aggarwal and others CrPC 482 - Quash PIL - CrPC 125 or BNSS 144 Must Go From Statute Book PWDV Act - DV Case Quashed PWDV Act Sec 2(f) - Not Maintainable After Divorce Work-In-Progress Article | Leave a comment

Anita Tambe Vs Anand Tambe on 28 February, 2018

Posted on December 25, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This is the judgment from Bombay High Court, in a case of DV filed after twenty seven years of the dissolution of marriage.

From Para 11,

In Zuveria Abdul Majid Patni vs. Atif Iqbal Mansoori and Another, the domestic violence took place between January 2006 and 06-9-2007 on which date first information report under Sections 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code was lodged by the wife against her husband and his relatives. It is in the context of these facts, that the Hon’ble Apex Court observes that even if it is accepted that during the pendency of the special leave petition the wife obtained ex parte “khula” (divorce) under the Muslim Personal Law from the Mufti on 09-5-2008, the petition under Section 12 of the DV Act is maintainable.

From Para 14,

Concededly, there is no interaction whatsoever between the petitioner wife and the respondent husband since the dissolution of marriage, not a single instance of domestic violence is pleaded in the petition the theme of which is that the petitioner wife is living at the mercy of her elder brother. Even if it is assumed, arguendo, that the limitation prescribed under Section 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code is not applicable, it is trite law, that any initiation of the proceedings under the statute must be done within a reasonable period. Even if the utmost latitude is given to the petitioner wife and it is assumed that she was subjected to domestic violence prior to the dissolution of marriage, the institution of the petition under Section 12 of the DV Act after twenty seven years of the dissolution of marriage is, as observed supra, a gross abuse of the statutory provisions.

Anita Tambe Vs Anand Tambe on 28 February, 2018

Citations:

Indiankanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/175316050/


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 High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Abuse Or Misuse of Process of Court Anita Tambe Vs Anand Tambe PIL - CrPC 125 or BNSS 144 Must Go From Statute Book PWDV Act - Dismissed On Merits PWDV Act Sec 12 - Not Made Out PWDV Act Sec 2(f) - Not Maintainable After Divorce | Leave a comment

Haresh Narayan Jaguja and Ors. Vs Namrata Haresh Jaguja and Ors on 28 April, 2015

Posted on December 25, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This is the judgment from Gujarat High Court, wherein it held concurrent jurisdiction exists between 125 CrPC and PWDV Act.

From Para 12,

Therefore, even if there is no reference of maintenance either under sub-Section 2 of Section 12 or in Section 20 of the Act, the fact remains that there is concurrent jurisdiction the statute provides concurrent jurisdiction and, therefore, it cannot be said that there is over ruling of jurisdiction while granting maintenance in different proceedings. At the most, what is required to be considered while deciding the claim of maintenance is that amount already awarded in a previous litigation may be taken into consideration for arriving at final amount of maintenance and, thereby, if order of only additional amount is there, then there is no overlapping and if award is for maximum amount of maintenance that can be awarded then set off against amount payable under any previous proceedings is to be extended.

From Para 13,

When petitioner is relying upon citations which are referred herein above and are already considered by the first appellate Court while rejecting the appeal, it would be appropriate for the petitioner herein to go through the legal provision properly. The time has come that litigants restrain themselves from agitating the issue which has already been decided by competent Court, only because they are not comfortable with the same.

Haresh Narayan Jaguja and Ors. Vs Namrata Haresh Jaguja and Ors on 28 April, 2015

 

Posted in High Court of Gujarat Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Adjustment is Permissible in Multiple Maintenances Haresh Narayan Jaguja and Ors. Vs Namrata Haresh Jaguja and Ors Multiple Maintenances Orders PIL - CrPC 125 or BNSS 144 Must Go From Statute Book | Leave a comment

Vishal Gore Vs Aparna Gore on 13 June, 2018

Posted on December 24, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This order from Hon’ble Bombay High Court talks about adjusting the maintenance paid under one case, when a maintenance order is granted in another case/law/act.

Intention of the judge, from Para 18,

What I intend to emphasize is the fact that the adjustment is permissible and the adjustment can be allowed of the lower amount against the higher amount. Though the wife can simultaneously claim maintenance under the different enactments, it does not in any way mean that the husband can be made liable to pay the maintenance awarded in each of the said proceedings.

Vishal SO. Rajesaheb Gore Vs Sow. Aparna WO. Vishal Gore on 13 June, 2018

 

Posted in High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Adjustment is Permissible in Multiple Maintenances Multiple Maintenances Orders PIL - CrPC 125 or BNSS 144 Must Go From Statute Book Vishal Gore Vs Aparna Gore | Leave a comment

Prakash Babulal Dangi Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr

Posted on December 12, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Here is the case filed by Prakash Babulal Dangi at Hon’ble Supreme Court, assailing the High Court of Bombay order available here on the aspect of Multiple Maintenance to be paid. These are daily orders along with final disposal order.

From January 2018:

Prakash Babulal Dangi 10-Jan-2018

From March 2018;

Prakash Babulal Dangi 12-Mar-2018

A new case got tagged to this one in April 2018. This is pending as on 10-Apr-2020.

Aarti Rai Vs Satish Rai and Ors on 09-Apr-2018

A new case got tagged to this one in November 2018. This was Dismissed as withdrawn.

Dheeraj Bhojraj Malukani Vs Seema Dheeraj Malukani on 16-Nov-2018

And the grand Finale for this case in September 2019. Yippieeee!!!! The Special Leave Petition is disposed of as withdrawn.

Prakash Babulal Dangi Vs The State of Maharashtra on 27 September 2019

A 2-judge bench passed guidelines to handle multiple maintenance litigation here.

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Multiple Maintenances Orders PIL - CrPC 125 or BNSS 144 Must Go From Statute Book Prakash Babulal Dangi Vs The State of Maharashtra | Leave a comment

Prakash Babulal Dangi Vs The State of Maharashtra on 10 October, 2017

Posted on December 12, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This is one of the persons trying to figure out why in India, menfolks are allowed to be looted not in just one law but on a myraid of laws.

From Para 11,

“In view thereof, with these clarifications that both the orders; the one passed under the provisions of Domestic Violence Act and another passed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C., are required to be complied, both these Writ Petitions stand disposed off.“

Prakash has filed a SLP with Hon’ble Supreme Court here that got disposed off due to settlement.

Prakash Babulal Dangi Vs The State of Maharashtra on 10 October, 2017
Posted in High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged PIL - CrPC 125 or BNSS 144 Must Go From Statute Book Prakash Babulal Dangi Vs The State of Maharashtra | Leave a comment

Kharak Singh Vs The State Of U.P. & Others on 18 December, 1962

Posted on December 10, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

In this landmark judgment from Hon’ble Supreme Court, it was held that “We have already extracted a passage from the judgment of Field, J. in Munn v. Illinois (1), where the learned judge pointed out that “life” in the 5th and 14th Amendments of the U. S. Constitution corresponding to Art. 21, means not merely the right to the continuance of a person’s animal existence, but a right to the possession of each of his organs-his arms and legs etc. We do not entertain any doubt that the word “’life” in Art. 21 bears the same signification.”

In our view cl. (b) of Regulation 236 is plainly violative of Art. 21’ and as there is no “law” on which the same could be justified it must be struck down as unconstitutional.

This petition raises a question of far-reaching importance. namely, a right of a citizen of India to lead a free life subject to social control imposed by valid law. The fact that the question has been raised at the instance of an alleged disreputable character shall not be allowed to deflect our perspective. If the police could do what they did to the petitioner, they could also do the same to an honest and law-abiding citizen.


Let us at the outset clear the ground. We are not concerned here with a law imposing restrictions on a bad character, for admittedly there is no such law. Therefore, the petitioner’s fundamental right, if any, has to be judged on the basis that there is no such law. To state it differently, what fundamental right of the petitioner has been infringed by the acts of the police? If he has any fundamental right which has been infringed by such acts, he would be entitled to a relief straight away, for the State could not justify it on the basis of any law made by the appropriate Legislature or the rules made thereunder.

Discussion around infringement of both Articles 19 and 21

At this stage it will be convenient to ascertain the scope of the said two provisions and their relation inter se in the context of the question raised. Both of them are distinct fundamental rights. No doubt the expression “personal liberty” is a comprehensive one and the right to move freely is an attribute of personal liberty. It is said that the freedom to move freely is carved out of personal liberty and, therefore, the expression “personal liberty” in Art. 21 excludes that attribute. In our view, this is not a correct approach. Both are independent fundamental rights, though there is overlapping. There is no question of one being carved out of another. The fundamen. tal right of life and personal liberty have many attributes and some of them are found in Art. 19. If a Person’s fundamental right under Art. 21 is infringed, the State can rely upon a law to sustain the action; but that cannot be a complete answer unless the said law satisfies the test laid down in Art. 19 (2) so far as the attributes covered by Art. 19 (1) are concerned. In other words, the State must satisfy that both the fundamental rights are not infringed by showing that there is a law and that it does amount -to a reasonable restriction. within the meaning of Art. 19 (2) of the Constitution. But in this case no such defence is available, as admittedly there is no such law. So the petitioner can legitimately plead that his fundamental rights both under Art. 19 (1) (d) and Art. 21 are infringed by the State.

 

Discussion around Article 21

We would, therefore, define the right of personal liberty in Art. 21 as a right of an individual to be free from restrictions or encroachments on his person, whether those restrictions or encroachments are directly imposed or indirectly brought about by calculated measures. If so understood, all the acts of surveillance under,Regulation 236 infringe the fundamental right of the petitioner under Art. 21 of the Constitution.

 

Kharak Singh Vs The State Of U.P. & Others on 18 December, 1962

Citation: 1963 AIR 1295, 1964 SCR (1) 332

Indiankanoon link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/619152/


The index page is here.

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty Kharak Singh Vs The State Of U.P. and Others Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes PIL - CrPC 125 or BNSS 144 Must Go From Statute Book Sandeep Pamarati | Leave a comment

Rachna Kathuria Vs Ramesh Kathuria on 30 August, 2010

Posted on December 8, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

In this judgment from Hon’ble Delhi High Court, it was held that “If a woman living separate from her husband had already filed a suit claiming maintenance and after adjudication maintenance has been determined by a competent court either in Civil Suit or by Court of MM in an application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. she does not have a right to claim additional maintenance under the Act. The Court of MM under the Act has power to grant maintenance and monetary reliefs on an interim basis in a fast track manner only in those cases where woman has not exercised her right of claiming maintenance either under Civil Court or under Section 125 Cr.P.C.”

Why PWDV Act?

Also held “It must be understood that the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 does not create any additional right to claim maintenance on the part of the aggrieved person. It only puts the enforcement of existing right of maintenance available to an aggrieved person on fast track.”

Rachana Khaturia Vs Ramesh Kathuria on 30 August, 2010

Index to DV Judgments is here.

Posted in High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision CrPC 125 or BNSS 144 - Order for Maintenance of Wives Children and Parents HAM Act 18 - Interim Maintenance Granted HAM Act 23 - Interim Maintenance Granted PIL - CrPC 125 or BNSS 144 Must Go From Statute Book PWDV Act 20 - Maintenance Granted PWDV Act Sec 29 - Interim Maintenance Enhanced Rachna Kathuria Vs Ramesh Kathuria | Leave a comment

Tanushree & Ors Vs A.S.Moorthy on 7 February, 2018

Posted on December 8, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Based on this judgment here, it was held that both proceedings of maintenance under 125 CrPC and PWDV Act can run parallelly and are maintainable.

Tanushree & Ors Vs A.S.Moorthy on 7 February, 2018

 

Posted in High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Maintenance under both 125 CrPC or BNSS 144 and PWDVA is Maintainable PIL - CrPC 125 or BNSS 144 Must Go From Statute Book Tanushree and Ors Vs A.S.Moorthy | Leave a comment

Renu Mittal Vs Anil Mittal and Others on 27 September, 2010

Posted on December 8, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

In this judgment, Hon’ble High Court of Delhi held that “The Jurisdiction for granting maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and Domestic Violence Act is parallel jurisdiction and if maintenance has been granted under Section 125 Cr.P.C. after taking into account the entire material placed before the Court and recording evidence, it is not necessary that another MM under Domestic Violence Act should again adjudicate the issue of maintenance. The law does not warrant that two parallel courts should adjudicate same issue separately. If adjudication has already been done by a Court of MM under Section 125 Cr.P.C., re-adjudication of the issue of maintenance cannot be done by a Court of MM under Domestic Violence Act.”

Renu Mittal Vs Anil Mittal and Others on 27 September, 2010

 

Posted in High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged PIL - CrPC 125 or BNSS 144 Must Go From Statute Book Renu Mittal Vs Anil Mittal and Others | 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
vigilnthindutva Hindutva Vigilant @vigilnthindutva ·
20 Jun

POV: You Visit London In 2050

Reply on Twitter 1935943435028254867 Retweet on Twitter 1935943435028254867 439 Like on Twitter 1935943435028254867 2048 X 1935943435028254867
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
ncbn N Chandrababu Naidu @ncbn ·
21 Jun

#InternationalYogaDay2025
#APBreaksWorldRecord

Today, Visakhapatnam saw two mighty oceans, with Bay of Bengal on one side, and a boundless sea of yoga practitioners on the other.

I joined Hon’ble Prime Minister @NarendraModi Ji and lakhs of citizens to celebrate International…

Reply on Twitter 1936303432308302258 Retweet on Twitter 1936303432308302258 966 Like on Twitter 1936303432308302258 7663 X 1936303432308302258
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
frustindian The Frustrated Indian @frustindian ·
21 Jun

🚨 : DRDO Proposes an Airship for the IAF !!!

It will be Solar Powered and Can stay up in the Air for weeks and months at a strech...

Reply on Twitter 1936337158438015112 Retweet on Twitter 1936337158438015112 1338 Like on Twitter 1936337158438015112 10320 X 1936337158438015112
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
idf Israel Defense Forces @idf ·
20 Jun

These are 4 reasons why Iran’s arsenal couldn’t be ignored:

Reply on Twitter 1936176484898546043 Retweet on Twitter 1936176484898546043 1695 Like on Twitter 1936176484898546043 7272 X 1936176484898546043
Load More

Recent Posts

  • Ghanshyam Soni Vs State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr on 04 Jun 2025 June 17, 2025
  • V.Rajesh Vs S.Anupriya on 04 Jun 2025 June 16, 2025
  • Bal Manohar Jalan Vs Sunil Paswan and Anr on 30 Jun 2014 June 8, 2025
  • Bilal Ahmad Ganaie Vs Sweety Rashid and Ors on 11 May 2023 June 8, 2025
  • Sandeep Bhavan Pamarati Vs Anuradha Kovi (Nullity petition) June 7, 2025

Most Read Posts

  • Vishal Shah Vs Monalisha Gupta and Ors on 20 Feb 2025 (2,641 views)
  • Mudireddy Divya Vs Sulkti Sivarama Reddy on 26 Mar 2025 (2,189 views)
  • Sukhdev Singh Vs Sukhbir Kaur on 12 Feb 2025 (1,925 views)
  • Madan Kumar Satpathy Vs Priyadarshini Pati on 07 Feb 2025 (1,563 views)
  • Megha Khetrapal Vs Rajat Kapoor on 19 Mar 2025 (1,379 views)
  • Om Prakash Ambadkar Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors on 16 Jan 2025 (1,149 views)
  • Ivan Rathinam Vs Milan Joseph on 28 Jan 2025 (1,008 views)
  • State of AP Vs Basa Nalini Manohar and Ors on 23 Dec 2024 (853 views)
  • Akkala Rami Reddy Vs State of AP and Anr on 30 Apr 2025 (754 views)
  • Saikat Das Vs State of West Bengal and Anr on 27 Mar 2025 (742 views)

Tags

Reportable Judgement or Order (402)2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision (372)Landmark Case (368)Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes (367)1-Judge Bench Decision (292)Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to (273)Work-In-Progress Article (217)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 (59)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 (43)HM Act 13 - Divorce Granted to Husband (42)Not Authentic copy hence to be replaced (40)CrPC 482 - Quash (39)Divorce granted on Cruelty ground (39)Legal Terrorism (38)

Categories

Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification (716)Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments (318)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 (106)High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification (86)High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification (66)General Study Material (55)High Court of Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification (50)High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification (50)Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications (49)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 (35)High Court of Gujarat Judgment or Order or Notification (27)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

  • June 2025 (9)
  • 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

  • BGW (Baghdad) on 2025-07-03 July 3, 2025
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Jul 3, 03:00 - 05:30 UTCJun 12, 23:01 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in BGW (Baghdad) datacenter on 2025-07-03 between 03:00 and 05:30 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 […]
  • BSR (Basra) on 2025-07-03 July 3, 2025
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Jul 3, 03:00 - 05:30 UTCJun 12, 23:01 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in BSR (Basra) datacenter on 2025-07-03 between 03:00 and 05:30 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 […]
  • NJF (Najaf) on 2025-07-03 July 3, 2025
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Jul 3, 03:00 - 05:30 UTCJun 12, 23:01 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in NJF (Najaf) datacenter on 2025-07-03 between 03:00 and 05:30 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

  • 180.178.47.58 | SD June 21, 2025
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 112 | First: 2025-04-25 | Last: 2025-06-21
  • 148.66.6.194 | SD June 21, 2025
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 89 | First: 2025-05-21 | Last: 2025-06-21
  • 172.245.93.88 | S June 21, 2025
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 140 | First: 2025-06-10 | Last: 2025-06-21
Owned and Operated by Advocate Sandeep Pamarati
Proudly powered by WordPress
Theme: Flint by Star Verte LLC

Bad Behavior has blocked 3809 access attempts in the last 7 days.

pixel