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: CrPC 125 or BNSS 144 – Order for Maintenance of Wives Children and Parents

CrPC 125 Must Go From Statute Book. And Why?

Posted on November 30, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Here is a little detailed analysis on why CrPC 125 Must Go From Statute Book as discussed in here.

Let’s follow this approach on looking at what the General Law provides for and in superseding fashion, how these two Special Laws provide for same or better or faster or hassle-free reliefs to the same set of beneficiaries.

By default, these being gender-biased social welfare laws, in the guise of Article 15(3) of Constitution of India, the Perpetrator/Accused/Payer is generally, a male person.

The below information is split into below sub-headings for easy reference.

  1. Comparative analysis of provisions of 125 CrPC, PWDV Act, 2005 and MWPSC Act, 2007.
  2. Decisions of Hon’ble High Courts: Both favorable and unfavorable.
  3. Conclusion
  4. Prayers for Writ Petition (PIL)

 

Comparative analysis of provisions of 125 CrPC, PWDV Act, 2005 and MWPSC Act, 2007

  • Origins:

Section 125 CrPC: Came into force via Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on 25th January, 1974. During the prime minister-ship of Indira Gandhi (Indian National Congress)

Ceiling of Rs.500/- was removed and interim maintenance along with expenses of proceedings was brought in on 24th September, 2001. During the prime minister-ship of Atal Bihari Vajpayee (Bharatiya Janata Party)

Vs

The PWDV Act: Came into force via Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 on 13th September, 2005. During the prime minister-ship of Manmohan Singh (Indian National Congress)

The MWPSC Act: Came into force via Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 on 29th December, 2007. During the prime minister-ship of Manmohan Singh (Indian National Congress)

All details about prime minister ships is from this site here.

 

  • Jurisdiction:

Under 125 CrPC: Per Section 126(1), Proceedings under section 125 may be taken against any person in any district-

(a) where he is, or
(b) where he or his wife, resides, or
(c) where he last resided with his wife, or as the case may be, with the mother of the illegitimate child.

Vs

Under PWDV Act: Per Section 27(1), The court of Judicial Magistrate of the first class or the Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, within the local limits of which-
(a) the person aggrieved permanently or temporarily resides or carries on business or is employed; or
(b) the respondent resides or carries on business or is employed; or
(c) the cause of action has arisen,
shall be the competent court to grant a protection order and other orders under this Act and to try offences under this Act.

Under MWPSC Act: Per Section 6(1), The proceedings under section 5 may be taken against Jurisdiction and procedure any children or relative in any district-
a. where he resides or last resided; or
b. where children or relative resides.

 

  • Nature of Proceedings:

Under 125 CrPC: Summary proceedings – “a civil or criminal proceeding in the nature of a trial that is conducted without formalities (as indictment, pleadings, and usually a jury) for the speedy and peremptory disposition of a matter, meant to prevent vagrancy”

Vs

Under PWDV Act: Per Section 12(4), Generally, Regular proceedings, no skipping of procedures as in Summary Proceedings. But, Per Section 28(2), Nothing in sub-section (1) shall prevent the court from laying down its own procedure for disposal of an application under section 12 or under sub-section (2) of section 23. This would mean, Summary proceedings may be adopted by the Trial Court Magistrate in the interest of Objective mentioned in the Objects and Reasons.

Under MWPSC Act: Per Section 8(1), Summary proceedings – “a civil or criminal proceeding in the nature of a trial that is conducted without formalities (as indictment, pleadings, and usually a jury) for the speedy and peremptory disposition of a matter”.

 

  • Beneficiaries:

Under 125 CrPC: Per Section 125(1), Wife, Children and Parents are the beneficiaries, irrespective of caste, creed, religion.

Vs

Under PWDV Act: Wife and Children are the beneficiaries, irrespective of caste, creed, religion.

Under MWPSC Act: Parents (senior citizens, meaning over 60 years or otherwise) and grand parents are the beneficiaries, irrespective of caste, creed, religion.

 

  • Rights of Beneficiaries:

Under 125 CrPC: Even divorced women are entitled for maintenance, as per Section 125(1), Explanation (b) – “wife” includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried.

SC judgment to hold that Divorced folks are eligible beneficiaries of 125 CrPC here even when the husband is deserted by wife. Woww But just 1 year back from this SC order, Husband-deserting advocate-wife was denied maintenance by an innocent High Court of Madhya Pradesh going by the rule book, I meant the famous, 125 CrPC.

Also Judicially separated folks are also eligible beneficiaries per this judgement here.

And the walk-in types, I meant the live-in type are also eligible for the benefits per this P&H HC judgment here. This is a hilarious case. Read it for the kicks. Livelaw link here. More fun here, here and here.

 

Vs

Under PWDV Act: Even divorced women are entitled for maintenance, as per Section 2(f). See 2014 SC judgment here which is based on a technicality. Although P&H HC holds otherwise here. Also Delhi HC here.

One more, Ajay Kumar Reddy & Ors vs State Of Chhattisgarh & Anr CRMP 387 in 2016 (19.07.17).

Under MWPSC Act: Parents can kickoff careless and negligent children from any of their property. Recent judgment from Delhi HC here.

 

  • Initiating the proceedings:

Under 125 CrPC: File a MC case directly in Court.

Vs

Under PWDV Act: Per Section 4(1), Any person who has reason to believe that an act of domestic violence has been, or is being, or is likely to be committed, may give information about it to the concerned Protection Officer. Per Section 5, a complaint can be given to Protection Officer, police officer, Service Provider (Any NGO) or Magistrate dealing with DV Cases.

Under MWPSC Act: Per Section 5(1), An application for maintenance under section 4, may be made-
(a) by a senior citizen or a parent, as the case may be; or
(b) if he is incapable, by any other person or organization authorized by him; or
(c) the Tribunal may take cognizance suo motu.

 

  • Legal Contention (reason for filing the case):

Under 125 CrPC: Per Section 125(1), Wife, Children and Parents are subjected to willful neglect (=This is Domestic Violence in general and economic abuse, in particular) and those who are unable to maintain themselves.

Vs

Under PWDV Act: Per Section 3, Wife and Children are subjected to Domestic Violence (includes Physical, Sexual, Verbal & Emotional and Economic Abuse).

Under MWPSC Act: Per Section 4(1), Parents (and grand parents) are the unable to maintain themselves from their own earnings or out of the property owned by them.

 

  • Defendants/Respondents:

Under 125 CrPC: Per Section 125(1), A person who may have a wife, Children and Parents are the Defendants/Respondents.

PIL Point: Per Sec 8 of IPC, an inference can be made that a parent can seek maintenance from their daughter and a child from their mother. Landmark judgment from Hon’ble Supreme Court available here.

Vs

Under PWDV Act: Per Section 2(a) “any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and against whom the aggrieved person has sought any relief under this Act“.

E.g.: A Mother-in-law can also file Domestic Violence Case on a Daughter-in-law and claim appropriate benefits.

Under MWPSC Act: Per Section 4(1), “The proceedings can be taken against any children (including son, daughter, grand-son and grand-daughter) or relative (any legal heir of childless senior citizen)“.

 

  • Benefits/Reliefs:

Under 125 CrPC: Per Section 125(1)(d), Maintenance in cash.

Vs

Under PWDV Act: Per Sections 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22, Right to reside in a shared household, Protection from further domestic violence, Residence, Maintenance, Custody of kids and Compensation Orders.

Under MWPSC Act: Per Section 2(b), Monthly maintenance in cash to cater to provisions for food, clothing, residence and medical attendance and treatment.

 

  • Limitations on Reliefs (Maintenance amount):

Under 125 CrPC: No statutory limit imposed on the amount of maintenance granted, if granted.

Vs

Under PWDV Act: No statutory limit imposed on the amount of maintenance granted, if granted.

Under MWPSC Act: Per Section 9(2), Maximum monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- in cash. Can only claim maintenance under either this Act or under 125 CrPC, not under both. Read Section 12 of the Act.

 

  • Statutory Limitation on Time for Case Disposal:

Under 125 CrPC: No statutory limit imposed on the time taken to dispose of the case, even though it is a summary proceeding.

Vs

Under PWDV Act: Per Section 12(5), Statutory limit imposed on time taken to dispose of the case, which is 60 days.

Under MWPSC Act: Per Section 5(4), Statutory limit imposed on time taken to dispose of the case, which is 90 days.

 

  • Statutory Time for recovery:

Under 125 CrPC: Per Section 125(3), If any person so ordered fails without sufficient cause to comply with the order, any such Magistrate may, for every breach of the order, issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying fines, and may sentence such person, for the whole or any part of each month’ s allowances remaining unpaid after the execution of the warrant, to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or until payment if sooner made: Provided that no warrant shall be issued for the recovery of any amount due under this section unless application be made to the Court to levy such amount within a period of one year from the date on which it became due.

Vs

Under PWDV Act: None prescribed.

Under MWPSC Act: Per Section (5)8, If, children or relative so ordered fail, without sufficient cause to comply with the order, any such Tribunal may, for every breach of the order, issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying fines, and may sentence such person for the whole, or any part of month’s allowance for the maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case be, remaining unpaid after the execution of the warrant, to imprisonment for a team which may extend to one month or until payment if sooner made whichever is earlier: Provided that no warrant shall be issued for the recovery of any amount due under this section unless application be made to the Tribunal to levy such amount within period of three months from the date on which it become due.

 

  • Exceptions/Alterations/Cancellations:

Under 125 CrPC:

  1. Per Section 125(4), No Wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance from her husband under this section if she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent.
  2. Per Section 125(5), On proof that any wife in whose favour an order has been made under this section is living in adultery, or that without sufficient reason she refuses to live with her husband, or that they are living separately by mutual consent, the Magistrate shall cancel the order.

Also read Section 127 of CrPC.

Vs

Under PWDV Act:  Per Section 25(2), If the Magistrate, on receipt of an application from the aggrieved person or the respondent, is satisfied that there is a change in the circumstances requiring alteration, modification or revocation of any order made under this Act, he may, for reasons to be recorded in writing pass such order, as he may deem appropriate.

Under MWPSC Act: Per Section 10(1), On proof of misrepresentation or mistake of fact or a change in the circumstances of any person, receiving a monthly allowance under section 9, for the maintenance or ordered under that section to pay a monthly allowance for the maintenance, the Tribunal may make such alteration, as it thinks fit, in the allowance for the maintenance.

 

  • Appeal provisions on the Order of maintenance or dismissal thereof:

Under 125 CrPC: Per Section 125(5), On proof that any wife in whose favour an order has been made under this section is living in adultery, or that without sufficient reason she refuses to live with her husband, or that they are living separately by mutual consent, the Magistrate shall cancel the order.

Vs

Under PWDV Act: Per Section 29, Appeal.-There shall lie an appeal to the Court of Session within thirty days from the date on which the order made by the Magistrate is served on the aggrieved person or the respondent, as the case may be, whichever is later.

Under MWPSC Act: Per Section 16(1), Any senior citizen or a parent, as the case may be, aggrieved by an order of a
Tribunal may, within sixty days from the date of the order, prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal
Provided further that the Appellate Tribunal may, entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of sixty days, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal in time.

 

  • Impact of amendments made to provisions:

Under 125 CrPC: Ceiling of Rs.500/- was removed in Amendment to CrPC in 2001. Most possibly, this being one significant reason, the volume of 125 CrPC case may have risen.

Vs

Under PWDV Act: No Amendment till date.

Under MWPSC Act: No Amendment till date.

 

  • Conflicts with other Laws allowing Double Jeopardy to happen:

Under 125 CrPC: Since it is a general law, superseded by PWDV Act and MWPSC Act, this set of sections 125-128 should be struck down and provisions allowing for dual reliefs in special laws should be altered appropriately.

Vs

Under PWDV Act:

Per Section 26,

(1) Any relief available under sections 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 may also be sought in any legal proceeding, before a civil court, family court or a criminal court, affecting the aggrieved person and the respondent whether such proceeding was initiated before or after the commencement of this Act.
(2) Any relief referred to in sub-section (1) may be sought for in addition to and along with any other relief that the aggrieved person may seek in such suit or legal proceeding before a civil or criminal court.
(3) In case any relief has been obtained by the aggrieved person in any proceedings other than a proceeding under this Act, she shall be bound to inform the Magistrate of the grant of such relief.

Per Section 36, Act not in derogation of any other law.-The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law, for the time being in force.

Under MWPSC Act: Per Section 3, The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any enactment other than this Act, or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any enactment other than this Act.

 

  • Imposition of Costs:

Under 125 CrPC: Per Section 126(3), The Court in dealing with applications under section 125 shall have power to make such order as to costs as may be just.

Vs

Under PWDV Act: Per Section 28(2), Nothing in sub-section (1) shall prevent the court from laying down its own procedure for disposal of an application under section 12 or under sub-section (2) of section 23.

Under MWPSC Act: None prescribed.

 

  • Availability of Interim Reliefs

Under 125 CrPC: Even though, no where in Sections 125-128 CrPC, a provision for Interim maintenance is mandated, Various Courts held that Interim orders are maintainable.

Vs

Under PWDV Act: Per Section 23(1), In any proceeding before him under this Act, the Magistrate may pass such interim order as he deems just and proper.

Under MWPSC Act: Per Section 5(2), The Tribunal may, during the pendency of the proceeding regarding monthly allowance for the maintenance under this section, order such children or relative to make a monthly allowance for the interim maintenance of such senior citizen including parent is to pay the same to such senior citizen including parent as the Tribunal may from time to time direct.

 

  • Statutory effective date of maintenance order:

Under 125 CrPC: Per Section 125(2), Such allowance shall be payable from the date of the order, or, if so ordered, from the date of the application for maintenance.

Vs

Under PWDV Act: No such effective date of maintenance prescribed.

Under MWPSC Act: Per Section 7, Any such allowance for the maintenance and expenses for proceeding shall be payable from the date of the order, or, if so ordered, from the date of the application for maintenance or expenses of proceeding, as the case may be.

 

  • Strict proof of Prima Facie evidence before obtaining Interim Reliefs

Under 125 CrPC: No strict proof required as it is a Summary proceeding in nature. Bombay High Court ruling here and new article here, Supreme Court held the same in these two judgments: Landmark Judgment of 2010 here and a recent judgment from 2018 here.

Vs

Under PWDV Act: Per Section 23(1), In any proceeding before him under this Act, the Magistrate may pass such interim order as he deems just and proper.

Under MWPSC Act: None Prescribed.

 

  • Obtaining Ex Parte Orders

Under 125 CrPC: Per Section 126(2), Provided that if the Magistrate is satisfied that the person against whom an order for payment of maintenance is proposed to be made is wilfully avoiding service, or wilfully neglecting to attend the Court, the Magistrate may proceed to hear and determine the case ex parte and any order so made may be set aside for good cause shown on an application made within three months from the date thereof subject to such terms including terms at to payment of costs to the opposite party as the Magistrate may think just and proper.

Vs

Under PWDV Act: Per Section 23(2), If the Magistrate is satisfied that an application prima facie discloses that the respondent is committing, or has committed an act of domestic violence or that there is a likelihood that the respondent may commit an act of domestic violence, he may grant an ex parte order on the basis of the affidavit in such form, as may be prescribed, of the aggrieved person under section 18, section 19, section 20, section 21 or, as the case may be, section 22 against the respondent.

Under MWPSC Act: Per Section 6(4), Provided that if the Tribunal is satisfied that the children or relative against whom an order for payment of maintenance is proposed to be made is willfully avoiding service, or willfully neglecting to attend the Tribunal, the Tribunal may proceed to hear and determine the case ex parte.

 

  • Efforts to be taken to get maintenance orders executed, upon failure of payment

Under 125 CrPC: Per Section 128, A copy of the order of maintenance shall be given without payment to the person in whose favour it is made, or to his guardian, if any or to the person to whom the allowance is to be paid; and such order may be enforced by any Magistrate in any place where the person against whom it is made may be, on such Magistrate being satisfied as to the identity of the parties and the non- payment of the allowance due.

Vs

Under PWDV Act: Per Section 9(h),Duties and functions of Protection Officers.-(1) It shall be the duty of the Protection Officer-. to ensure that the order for monetary relief under section 20 is complied with and executed, in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974);

Per Section 20(1)(d), Monetary reliefs: (1) While disposing of an application under sub-section (1) of section 12, the Magistrate may direct the respondent to pay monetary relief to meet the expenses incurred and losses suffered by the aggrieved person and any child of the aggrieved person as a result of the domestic violence and such relief may include, but not limited to,- the maintenance for the aggrieved person as well as her children, if any, including an order under or in addition to an order of maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force.

Per Section 20(6), Monetary reliefs: Upon the failure on the part of the respondent to make payment in terms of the order under sub-section (1), the Magistrate may direct the employer or a debtor of the respondent, to directly pay to the aggrieved person or to deposit with the court a portion of the wages or salaries or debt due to or accrued to the credit of the respondent, which amount may be adjusted towards the monetary relief payable by the respondent.

Under MWPSC Act: Per Section 11(2), A maintenance order made under this Act shall have the same force and effect as an order passed under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and shall be executed in the manner prescribed for the execution of such order by that Code.

 

  • Provision for penal punishment on failure to pay maintenance

Under 125 CrPC: Per Section 125(3), If any person so ordered fails without sufficient cause to comply with the order, any such Magistrate may, for every breach of the order, issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying fines, and may sentence such person, for the whole or any part of each month’ s allowances remaining unpaid after the execution of the warrant, to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or until payment if sooner made: Provided that no warrant shall be issued for the recovery of any amount due under this section unless application be made to the Court to levy such amount within a period of one year from the date on which it became due: Provided further that if such person offers to maintain his wife on condition of her living with him, and she refuses to live with him, such Magistrate may consider any grounds of refusal stated by her, and may make an order under this section notwithstanding such offer, if he is satisfied that there is just ground for so doing. Explanation.- If a husband has contracted marriage with another woman or keeps a mistress, it shall be considered to be just ground for his wife’ s refusal to live with him.

Per Section 421: Warrant for levy of fine

(1) When an offender has been sentenced to pay a fine, the Court passing the sentence may take action for the recovery of the fine in either or both of the following ways, that is to say, it may-

(a) issue a warrant for the levy of the amount by attachment and sale of any movable property belonging to the offender;
(b) issue a warrant to the Collector of the district, authorising him to realise the amount as arrears of land revenue from the movable or immovable property, or both, of the defaulter: Provided that, if the sentence directs that in default of payment of the fine, the offender shall be imprisoned, and if such offender has undergone the whole of such imprisonment in default, no Court shall issue such warrant unless, for special reasons to be recorded in writing, it considers it necessary so to do, or unless it has made an order for the payment of expenses or compensation out of the fine under section 357.

 

Some landmark judgments by Hon’ble High Courts of Patna and Bombay

  • Laljee Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar on 16 September, 2011
  • Sachin Vs Sau. Sushma on 6 May, 2014

Vs

Under PWDV Act: Per Section 9(1)(h), Duties and functions of Protection Officers.-(1) It shall be the duty of the Protection Officer-. to ensure that the order for monetary relief under section 20 is complied with and executed, in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974);

Under MWPSC Act: Per Section (5)8, If, children or relative so ordered fail, without sufficient cause to comply with the order, any such Tribunal may, for every breach of the order, issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying fines, and may sentence such person for the whole, or any part of month’s allowance for the maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case be, remaining unpaid after the execution of the warrant, to imprisonment for a team which may extend to one month or until payment if sooner made whichever is earlier: Provided that no warrant shall be issued for the recovery of any amount due under this section unless application be made to the Tribunal to levy such amount within period of three months from the date on which it become due.

 

  • Relief available when all available remedies are exhaused:

Under 125 CrPC: Statutory limit imposed on time taken to dispose of the case, which is 60 days. Read 2001 Amendment to CrPC here.

Vs

Under PWDV Act: Per Section 12(5), Statutory limit imposed on time taken to dispose of the case, which is 60 days.

Under MWPSC Act: Per Section 16(6), appeal to be disposed off in 1 month from date of receiving appeal.

 

  • Objects and Reasons

Under 125 CrPC: None.

Vs

Under PWDV Act: Presently, where a woman is subjected to cruelty by her husband or his relatives, it is an offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The civil law does not, however, address this phenomenon in its entirety. It is, therefore, proposed to enact a law keeping in view the rights guaranteed under articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution to provide for a remedy under the civil law which is intended to protect woman from being victims of domestic violence and to prevent the occurrence of domestic violence in the society. The Act seeks to achieve the said object.

Under MWPSC Act: Though the parents can claim maintenance under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the procedure is time-consuming as well as expensive. Hence, there is a need to have simple, inexpensive and speedy provisions to claim maintenance for parents.

 

Decisions of Hon’ble High Courts: Both favorable and unfavorable

Hon’ble High Courts of various States have held favorably that…

Madras High Court:

In a recent judgment, Hon’ble Shri M.S.Ramesh of Madras High Court has reiterated that “The petitioner herein having chosen to invoke the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act seeking for monetary relief under Section 20(3), cannot subsequently invoke Section 125 Cr.P.C., for maintenance on the same set of facts and cause of action in view of my reasonings given above.” The sequence of cases are first DV case and then 125 CrPC on exact same allegations on past and Hon’ble Judge showed the door to the false complainant. The judgment is available here.

Another wonderful judgment here from same Hon’ble Madras High Court from Justice Shri S.Nagamuthu was the landmark judgment referred in above 2018 judgment. In this case, the sequence of cases are first 125 CrPC and then DV case on exact same allegations on past and Hon’ble Judge showed the door to the false complainant.

Bombay High Court:

Based on above landmark judgment, Hon’ble Bombay High Court also issued a very good order here recently in 2018.

Another judgment from 2018 here, talks about adjusting the maintenance amount in 125 CrPC with that of granted in DVC.

The Recent April 25, 2019 judgment here clearly says, “Once Divorce Is Granted, Relief Can’t Be Sought Under Domestic Violence Act” which in absolutely certain terms says, that divorced women cannot invoke DV proceedings and the domestic relationship ceases to exists post divorce and hence, as a corollary, remedy available for such divorced women for maintenance is ONLY under 125 CrPC.

Gujarat High Court: Even Gujarat High Court, in 2015, talks about adjustment between multiple maintenance orders, if granted. Read it here.

Delhi High Court:

Shri Justice Shiv Narayan Dhingra, has delivered these judgments in 2010,

  1. https://www.shadesofknife.in/harbans-lal-malik-vs-payal-malik-on-29-july-2010/
  2. https://www.shadesofknife.in/renu-mittal-vs-anil-mittal-and-others-on-27-september-2010/
  3. https://www.shadesofknife.in/rachna-kathuria-vs-ramesh-kathuria-on-30-august-2010/
    1. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/113760308/

 

Some vexed up Brave hearts have fought back against unfavorable Judgments

  1. https://www.livelaw.in/husband-follow-maintenance-orders-crpc-domestic-violence-act-sc-issues-notice-read-order/
    1. https://www.livelaw.in/order-maintenance-awarded-domestic-violence-act-cannot-substituted-maintenance-s-125-crpc-read-judgment/
  2. If Wife sits idle, after resigning from work without reason, just before filing false maintenance complaint, it is fine. But husband if seeks maintenance (of course under S 24 of HMAct) from working wife (only after he is able to prove any incapability or handicap), the Court observed that in absence of such circumstances as enumerated above, endowing maintenance on the husband would only promote idleness.
    1. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/177540678/
  3. Woman tried to ascribe domestic relationship to already married man: https://www.shadesofknife.in/gautam-jairam-gawai-vs-ragini-gautam-gawai-anr-on-20-january-2017/
  4. Both proceedings of maintenance under 125 CrPC and PWDV Act are maintainable:
    1. https://www.shadesofknife.in/poonam-vs-v-p-sharma-on-25-february-2014/
    2. https://www.shadesofknife.in/ramu-singh-tomar-ano-v-smt-bhuri-bai-on-15-february-2017/
    3. https://www.shadesofknife.in/tanushree-ors-vs-a-s-moorthy-on-7-february-2018/

 

The below are the victims who were saddled with maintenance under more than one laws.

  1. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/127433736/
    1. Sec 125 CrPC allowed by order on 23.01.2017
    2. Sec 23 of PWDV Act application dismissed by order on 06.04.2018

 

Conclusion

These judgments seem to be hinting at, for first-ever offence of husband of Domestic Violence (without a doubt, neglect and non-maintenance under 125 CrPC, is a violence under PWDV Act too), the ladies (married and later statuses) of India can choose 125 CrPC as their go-to law to extort monies from the husband, they don’t want to live with and for every new and subsequent act of domestic violence, it is the application under PWDV Act that they should file, for speedy disposal/dole outs, allegedly under 60 days per section 12(5) of PWDV Act.

Truly, Ingenious way of making and implementing beneficial laws in my motherland, India.

 

Prayers for the Writ petition (PIL)

In addition to 125 CrPC (along with 126, 127 & 128 CrPC), the sections 20(1)(d) and 36 of PWDV Act are to be stuck down, as they are the ones supporting/enabling/causing Double Jeopardy to happen via PWDV Act, in colluded collaboration with 125 CrPC.

It is not rocket science to understand why the legislators on that time in 2005 did what they did. The PWDV Act, when brought in, was catering to only 2 of the beneficiaries of 125 CrPC, namely Wife and Children. Obviously, no one can foresee that in 2007, MWPSC Act will be brought in. As such, Parents are still to depend on 125 CrPC for their maintenance as on 2005.

But when the MWPSC Act was brought in 2007, the above shortcoming was fulfilled and all beneficiaries of 125 CrPC (Various stautses of Wife, Parents and Children) were gainfully and sufficiently covered under the both laws PWDV Act + MWPSC Act, put together.

Thereby, making 125 CrPC a vestige that has to be hacked off from the CrPC Statute book. Once 125 CrPC and its related sections are stuck down as infructuous, there would be no confusion among the masses as well as the judicial officers on order from which law should be followed or both to be followed etcetera.


More references:

  1. https://tilakmarg.com/opinion/what-happens-to-pending-corruption-cases-under-section-131d-of-pc-act-after-its-repeal-in-2018-amendment/
  2. https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-ab&q=intelligible+differntia
  3. https://mynation.net/docs/judgments/
  4. http://vaastav.org/judgements/divorce/
  5. https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-ab&q=forum+shopping

Thoroughly detailed post is available here, which includes corrections and additions to above points, that will feed into the Public Interest Litigation (Writ Petition at High Court of Andhra Pradesh), that I am going to file, at appropriate time in 2019.

The prayers section of the PIL is available here.


 

Posted in Judicial Activism (for Public Benefit) | Tagged CrPC 125 or BNSS 144 - Order for Maintenance of Wives Children and Parents CrPC 126 - Procedure CrPC 127 - Alteration in allowance CrPC 128 - Enforcement of Order of Maintenance Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007 PIL - CrPC 125 or BNSS 144 Must Go From Statute Book Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 | 2 Comments

Gurbinder Singh vs Manjit Kaur on 25 January, 2010

Posted on November 25, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Justice Shri Shiv Narayan Dhingra has fined a lying knife for an amount of Rs.10,000/- for not divulging the fact that there is an earlier settlement arrived at by the parties in the local court and an affidavit to the same tune was given in High Court. Hiding all this information, the knife filed for maintenance under 125 CrPC again.

Gurbinder Singh vs Manjit Kaur on 25 January, 2010
Posted in High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged CrPC 125 or BNSS 144 - Order for Maintenance of Wives Children and Parents Fine For Contempt Of Court Gurbinder Singh vs Manjit Kaur Suppression of Material Facts Violation of Settlement Terms | Leave a comment

CrPC 125 Must Go From Statute Book

Posted on November 11, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

I firmly believe that CrPC 125 should be struck down or repealed from Statute Book. I present my points, briefly, to conclude CrPC 125 is a vestige from the past and it should go out.

Introduction

There are a set of 4 sections in Criminal Procedure Code of India (hereinafter, CrPC) that mandate that ‘wives, children and parents should be maintained’. I list the said sections from CrPC below.

  1. CrPC 125 – Order for Maintenance of Wives, Children and Parents
  2. CrPC 126 – Procedure for CrPC 125 Case
  3. CrPC 127 – Alteration in Allowance
  4. CrPC 128 – Enforcement of Order of Maintenance

The key emphasis I want to bring to the fore from these 4 sections, being that the ‘beneficiary’ of these sections are to be ‘unable to maintain themselves‘. Now the common sense (which is uncommon to find these days with people) questions ‘why would a lawfully wedded wife or legally caring and loving parents or the twinkle-in-my-eyes children who are residing in a shelter and have something to eat and wear, suddenly become “unable to maintain themselves”??? WHY??? Because the man “having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain”. Cool.

 

Point Of Contention

What does that mean from the eyes of law, he has caused domestic violence to the said beneficiaries, as defined in the DV Act (where the lovely ladies and their kiddos are the beneficiaries).

It means he has neglected to care for his elderly parents, as defined in Senior Citizens Act where the beneficiaries are parents of age less than 60 and senior citizens)

It is hopelessly assumed by the law, that women cannot cause this very same act of negligence towards her husband, her parents and her kids. Not sure where is the basis for this twisted mindset coming from, when they can strike down

  • SC Strikes Down 157 Year Old Law Criminalizing Consensual Homo-Sexual Acts Between Adults; Holds Section 377 IPC Unconstitutional To That Extent (Read report here).
  • Husband Is Not The Master Of Wife, SC Strikes Down 158 Year Old Adultery Law Under Section 497 IPC (Read Report here)
  • Entry of Women of menstruating age into Lord Ayyappa temple at Sabarimala (What Applies To Man Applies To Woman As Well, Says CJI Dipak Misra here)
  • Right To Choose Life Partner Is A Fundamental Right, Consent Of Family, Community, Clan Not Necessary For Marriage Between Two Adults (Read report here)

Conclusion

Now, hitting the ball out of park, I state,

  1. We have Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act here and rules thereof here, to cater to the needs of neglected women and kids.
  2. We have Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act here and a report from standing committee here which was basis for this Act to cater to the needs of elderly parents.

When we have two Special Laws to cater to the well being and care of wifes, kids and parents how can a provision of central act which by the way is a General law sustain? It is settled principle of law, that Special Laws always supersede General Law.

I have not even gone into applicability of Article 15(3) of Constitution of India, in case on 125 CrPC and the blabber of beneficial act yada, yada, yada. Not touched the equal treated and subjection to laws to be given across genders with equity.

How can two civil remedies be provided for same single offence? Is this not double-jeopardy?

Is it not correct to repeal CrPC Section 125, 126, 127 and 128 on this basis?

A more detailed comparative analysis made available here. Do share your views.


 

Posted in Judicial Activism (for Public Benefit) | Tagged CrPC 125 or BNSS 144 - Order for Maintenance of Wives Children and Parents CrPC 126 - Procedure CrPC 127 - Alteration in allowance CrPC 128 - Enforcement of Order of Maintenance Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007 Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 | Leave a comment

CrPC 125 – Order for Maintenance of Wives, Children and Parents

Posted on November 11, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife
  1. If any person having sufficient means neglects or refuses to maintain;
    • his wife, unable to maintain herself, or
    • his legitimate or illegitimate minor child, whether married or not, unable to maintain itself, or
    • his legitimate or illegitimate child (not being a married daughter) who has attained majority, where such child is, by reason of any physical or mental abnormality or injury unable to maintain itself, or
    • his father or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself,A Magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate as such magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct;Provided that the Magistrate may order the father of a minor female child referred to in clause (b) to make such allowance, until she attains her majority, if the Magistrate is satisfied that the husband of such minor female child, if married, is not possessed of sufficient means.

      Provided further that the Magistrate may, during the pendency of the proceeding regarding monthly allowance for the maintenance under this Sub-Section, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the interim maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, and the expenses of such proceeding which the Magistrate considers reasonable, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct;

      Provided also that an application for the monthly allowance for the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding under the second proviso shall, as far as possible, be disposed of within sixty days from the date of the service of notice of the application to such person.

      For the purposes of this Chapter–
      a) “minor” means a person who, under the provisions of the Indian Majority Act, 1875 (9 of 1875) is deemed not to have attained his majority;
      b) “wife” includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried.

  2. Any such allowance for the maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding shall be payable from the date of the order, or, if so ordered, from the date of the application for maintenance or interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be.
  3. If any person so ordered fails without sufficient cause to comply with the order, any such Magistrate may, for every breach of the order, issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying fines, and may sentence such person, for the whole, or any port of each month’s allowance allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be remaining unpaid after the execution of the warrant, to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or until payment if sooner made;Provided that no warrant shall be issued for the recovery of any amount due under this section unless application be made to the Court to levy such amount within a period of one year from the date on which it became due;Provided further that if such person offers to maintain his wife on condition of her living with him, and she refuses to live with him, such Magistrate may consider any grounds of refusal stated by her, and may make an order under this section notwithstanding such offer, if he is satisfied that there is just ground for so doing.
  4. No wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance for the maintenance or the interim maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case may be from her husband under this section if she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her, husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent.
  5. On proof that any wife in whose favour an order has been made under this section is living in adultery, or that without sufficient reason she refuses to live with her husband, or that they are living separately by mutual consent, the Magistrate shall cancel the order

 


An amendment to this 1973 Act is here. A terrible one.


Next section here.

Posted in Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments | Tagged CrPC 125 or BNSS 144 - Order for Maintenance of Wives Children and Parents | Leave a comment

Chaturbhuj Vs Sita Bai on 27 November, 2007

Posted on August 1, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Apex Court explained who is eligible to claim maintenance u/s 125 Cr.P.C. and under what conditions.

From Para 7,

7. Under the law the burden is placed in the first place upon the wife to show that the means of her husband are sufficient. In the instant case there is no dispute that the appellant has the requisite means. But there is an inseparable condition which has also to be satisfied that the wife was unable to maintain herself. These two conditions are in addition to the requirement that the husband must have neglected or refused to maintain his wife. It has to be established that the wife was unable to maintain herself. The appellant has placed material to show that the respondent wife was earning some income. That is not sufficient to rule out application of Section 125 CrPC. It has to be established that with the amount she earned the respondent wife was able to maintain herself.

Heart and soul of this judgment from Hon’ble Apex Court is in Para 8.

In an illustrative case where wife was surviving by begging, would not amount to her ability to maintain herself. It can also be not said that the wife has been capable of earning but she was not making an effort to earn. Whether the deserted wife was unable to maintain herself, has to be decided on the basis of the material placed on record. Where the personal income of the wife is insufficient she can claim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C. The test is whether the wife is in a position to maintain herself in the way she was used to in the place of her husband. In Bhagwan v. Kamla Devi (AIR 1975 SC 83) it was observed that the wife should be in a position to maintain standard of living which is neither luxurious nor penurious but what is consistent with status of a family. The expression “unable to maintain herself” does not mean that the wife must be absolutely destitute before she can apply for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.

Chaturbhuj Vs Sita Bai on 27 November, 2007

Citations: [AIR 2008 SUPREME COURT 530], [2007 AIR SCW 7416], [2008 CRI LJ (NOC) 186], [2008 CRI LJ (NOC) 2], [2008 (1) AIR JHAR R 664], [2008 (1) SRJ 29], [(2008) 1 MH LJ (CRI) 644], [(2008) 1 JCC 486 (SC)], [2008 (1) CALCRILR 416], [2008 (1) SCC(CRI) 356], [2008 (2) CRI RJ 401], [2008 ALL MR(CRI) 860], [2008 (2) SCC 316], [2007 (13) SCALE 402], [2007 (8) SUPREME 525], [(2008) 1 MPHT 13], [(2008) 64 ALLINDCAS 735 (CHH)], [(2008) 1 CGLJ 228], [(2008) 1 CHANDCRIC 27], [(2008) 1 DMC 22], [(2008) 1 CIVILCOURTC 233], [(2008) 2 GUJ LR 1159], [(2008) 1 HINDULR 130], [(2008) 2 JAB LJ 70], [(2008) 1 MADLW(CRI) 615], [(2008) 2 MAD LJ 481], [(2008) 1 MAD LJ(CRI) 1400], [(2008) 2 MARRILJ 605], [(2008) MATLR 775], [(2008) MATLR 165], [(2008) 39 OCR 383], [(2008) 1 PUN LR 263], [(2008) 1 RAJ LW 142], [(2008) 1 RECCRIR 163], [(2007) 4 CURCRIR 408], [(2008) 1 RECCIVR 136], [(2008) 2 ALLCRIR 1409], [(2008) 3 CGLJ 473], [(2008) 1 CAL LJ 166], [(2008) 1 ALLCRILR 342], [(2008) 105 CUT LT 729], [(2007) 3 JCC 2446 (DEL)], [(2008) 1 KER LT 41], [(2008) 1 RAJ CRI C 35], [2008 CRILR(SC&MP) 1], [(2008) 1 CRILR(RAJ) 1], [2008 CRILR(SC MAH GUJ) 1], [2008 (1) ALD(CRL) 97], [2008 (1) ANDHLT(CRI) 131 SC], [2007 INSC 1190]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1720873/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ae55e4b01497114137ad

https://www.the-laws.com/Encyclopedia/browse/Case?caseId=007002893100&title=chaturbhuj-vs-sita-bai

[Landmark Judgement] Chaturbhuj v/s Sita Bai (2008)


Index Maintenance Judgments under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is here.

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to Chaturbhuj Vs Sita Bai CrPC 125 or BNSS 144 - Order for Maintenance of Wives Children and Parents Knife Be Unable To Maintain Herself Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes PIL - CrPC 125 or BNSS 144 Must Go From Statute Book Reportable Judgement or Order | Leave a comment

Shail Kumari Devi & Anr Vs Krishan Bhagwan Pathak on 28 July, 2008

Posted on August 1, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Landmark judgment from Apex Court here around the Sec 125 CrPC and few more details.

From Para 16,

Bare reading of sub-section (1) of Section 125 leaves no room for doubt that if any person having sufficient means, neglects or refuses to maintain his wife who is unable to maintain herself or his legitimate (or illegitimate) child (children) unable to maintain itself (themselves), or his father, or mother, unable to maintain himself or herself, a Court, upon proof of negligence or refusal, order such person to pay maintenance to his wife or child (children) or parents, as the case may be. It is also clear that maximum amount which could be ordered to be paid was Rs.500/- p.m. which was clear from the expression “not exceeding Rs.500/- in the whole”.

From Para 18,

By the Code of Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2001 (Act 50 of 2001), subsections (1) and (2) came to be amended with effect from September 24, 2001. The amended sub-sections now read thus:

…..

a Magistrate of the first class may, upon proof of such neglect or refusal, order such person to make a monthly allowance for the maintenance of his wife or such child, father or mother, at such monthly rate, as such Magistrate thinks fit, and to pay the same to such person as the Magistrate may from time to time direct:

How the interim maintenance’ came to be about?

So far as ‘interim’ maintenance is concerned, it is true that Section 125 of the Code as it originally enacted did not expressly empower the Magistrate to make such order and direct payment of interim maintenance. But the Code equally did not prohibit the Magistrate from making such order. Now, having regard to the nature of proceedings, the primary object to secure relief to deserted and destitute wives, discarded and neglected children and disabled and helpless parents and to ensure that no wife, child or parent is left beggared and destitute on the scrap-heap of society so as to be tempted to commit crime or to tempt others to commit crime in regard to them, it was held that the Magistrate had ‘implied power’ to make such order. The jurisdiction of the Magistrate under Chapter IX (Order for Maintenance of Wives, Children and Parents) is not strictly criminal in nature. Moreover, the remedy provided by Section 125 of the Code is a summary remedy for securing reasonable sum by way of maintenance subject to a decree passed by a competent civil Court. Hence, in absence of any express bar or prohibition, Section 125 could be interpreted as conferring power by necessary implication to make interim order of maintenance subject to final outcome in the application.

Golden Words

Again, maintenance is a right which accrues to a wife against her husband the minute the former gets married to the latter. It is not only a moral obligation but is also a legal duty cast upon the husband to maintain his wife. Hence, whenever a wife does not stay with her husband and claims maintenance, the only question which the Court is called upon to consider is whether she was justified to live separately from her husband and still claim maintenance from him? If the reply is in the affirmative, she is entitled to claim maintenance.

Shail Kumari Devi & Anr Vs Krishan Bhagwan Pathak on 28 July, 2008

Citations : [2008 CRLJ SC 3881], [2008 AIR SC 5063], [2008 AIOL 871], [2008 SCR 11 386], [2008 ANJ SC SUPP 2 70], [2009 BOMCR SC SUPP 1 324], [2008 SCC CRI 3 839], [2008 JT 8 227], [2008 SCALE 10 602], [2008 AIR SC 3006], [2008 SCC 9 632], [2008 KERLT 3 576], [2008 AIR SCW 5063]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1952766/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ae64e4b0149711413b53

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged CrPC 125 or BNSS 144 - Order for Maintenance of Wives Children and Parents CrPC 354 - Language and contents of judgment Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes PWDV Act Sec 20 - Maintenance From Date of Application Or Petition PWDV Act Sec 20 - Maintenance From Date of Order Reportable Judgement or Order Shail Kumari Devi and Anr Vs Krishan Bhagwan Pathak Statement of Objects and Reasons | Leave a comment

Maintenance Judgments under Section 125 CrPC [Section 144 BNSS]

Posted on May 26, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Listed below are few judgments which deal with maintenance for knifes under Section 125 of CrPC [now Section 144 BNSS]. Some are judgments of various courts where there are modifications done to the interim maintenance granted to Knife. The reason for this listing is to initiate Perjury proceedings against the Knife (apart from an application for Contempt of Courts), as and when applicable. Some helpful judgements are here.

In some recent judgments of High Courts, it is being held that capable to earn is NOT equated to earning currently. Banking on this aspect only is not helpful and can be suicidal if this is the only argument victim-husband has.

Supreme Court

  1. Smt. Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav A Vs Ranantrao Shivram Adhav And … on 27 January, 1988 (When the marriage is a complete nullity in the eye of law and wife is not entitled to the benefit of Section 125 of the CrPC)
  2. Smt. Jasbir Kaur Sehgal Vs The District Judge Dehradun & Ors on 27 August, 1997 (Maintenance granted from Date of Application from Date of Order)
  3. Shahada Khatoon and Ors Vs Amjad Ali and Ors on 7 Apr 1999 (Under 125(3) CrPC, 1-year time limit is for issuance of warrant for arrest)
  4. Deb Narayan Halder Vs Anushree Halder on 26 August, 2003 [No maintenance for Deserter wife 144(4) BNSS/125(4) CrPC]
  5. Ruchi Agarwal Vs Amit Kumar Agrawal and Ors on 5 Nov 2004 [Once MCD done with no future claims, maintenance cannot be claimed later]
  6. Chaturbhuj Vs Sita Bai on 27 November, 2007 [who is eligible to claim maintenance u/s 125 Cr.P.C. and under what conditions]
  7. Bhushan Kumar Meen vs Mansi Meen @ Harpreet Kaur on 28 April, 2009 (Reduced from 10K to 5K)
  8. Poongadi And Anr vs Thangavel on 27 September, 2013 (Total arrears to be paid from date of filing of MC application; arrest can happen for a month maximum for each violation of monthly maintenance)
  9. Sunita Kachwaha and Ors Vs Anil Kuchwaha on 28 Oct 2014 [Wife must positively aver and prove that she is unable to maintain herself]
  10. Rajnesh Pal Naidu Vs Neha Naidu Joshi and Anr on 04 Nov 2020 [Guidelines issued to file Income, Asset and Liability affidavits before passing any Interim or Final Maintenance Orders ]
  11. Anju Garg and Anr Vs Deepak Kumar Garg on 28 Sep 2022 [An able-bodied husband must provide financial support and cannot escape liability]
  12. Aditi Sharma Vs Jitesh Sharma on 06 Nov 2023 [Reiterated/re-circulated Rajnesh Vs Neha to all High Courts]
  13. Rina Kumari Vs Dinesh Kumar Mahto and Anr on 10 Jan 2025 [Being successful in RCR case doesn’t automatically disqualify the wife from maintenance under 125 CrPC/144 BNSS]
  14. N.Usha Rani and Anr Vs Moodudula Srinivas on 30 Jan 2025 [Second husband can be made liable to pay maintenance to Wife, even if she didn’t take divorce from her first husband]

 

Allahabad High Court

  1. Kiran Dhar Vs Alok Berman on 14 May, 2014 (No Domestic relationship as First Wife alive)
  2. Ismile @ Shama Vs State Of U.P. & Others on 22 September, 2016 (Knife able to maintain herself)
  3. Vipin Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Anr on 25 Feb 2022 (relying on Hazi, held issue of arrest warrants is not correct law, in case of non payment of maintenance)
  4. Parul Tyagi Vs Gaurav Tyagi on 04 Aug 2023 [IMP: Guidelines passed in elaboration of Rajnesh Pal Naidu Vs Neha Naidu Joshi and Anr on 04 Nov 2020 and Aditi Sharma Vs Jitesh Sharma on 06 Nov 2023]
  5. Dr. Virender Kumar Vs State of UP and Anr on 16 Oct 2024 [Once there is categorical allegation of adultery against the wife (attracting Section 125(4) Cr.P.C.), then the court concerned dealing with the matter under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has to decide the issue of adultery and even interim maintenance can be awarded only after recording a finding on that issue]
  6. Mohammad Rizwan Khan Vs State of UP and Anr on 08 Sep 2025 (Dispose Perjury First; Adultery allegations)
  7. Atul Kumar Bajpai Vs State of UP and Anr on 17 Sep 2025 (Dispose Perjury First; False RvN Affidavit allegations)
  8. Ankit Saha Vs State of UP and Anr on 03 Dec 2025 [Failed to prove unable to support herself and came to Court with unclean hands; Relies on Rekha Sharad Ushir Vs Saptashrungi Mahila Nagari Sahkari Patsansta Ltd on 26 Mar 2025]

 

Andhra Pradesh High Court

  1. Jangam Srinivasa Rao Vs Jaagam Rajeshwari and Anr on 13 Mar 1989 [Can claim maintenance only up to 12 months; Bad judgment as such restriction goes against execution proceedings]
  2. Moodududla Srinivas Vs Smt .N.Usha Rani on 13 April, 2017
  3. Gollamudi Ramesh Vs Modukuri Nagamani and Anr on 30 Aug 2017 [Evidence must not be taken via Affidavit as per Sec 126(2) CrPC]
  4. Borugadda Rama Devi and Ors Vs Borugadda Ravi Kumar and Anr on 26 Dec 2018 [No maintenance for Deserter wife 144(4) BNSS/125(4) CrPC]
  5. Chinta Vamshi Vs State of Telangana and Anr on 16 Oct 2023 [Follow Rajnesh Vs Neha]
  6. Gurram Sitaramaiah Vs Gurram Siva Parvathi and Ors on 08 Jan 2024 [Relied on Shahada Khatoon and Poongadi judgments; Under 125(3) CrPC, 1-year time limit is for issuance of warrant for arrest; arrest can happen for a month maximum for each violation of monthly maintenance]

Trial Courts:

  1. Byru Rajeswari Vs Byru Suresh Babu on 30 Apr 2018 (Knife failed to prove her allegations)
  2. Gadesula Radhika Vs Gadesula Rajesh on 22 Jan 2019 (Knife voluntarily left the company of husband)
  3. Palagani Samrajyam and Anr Vs Palagani Nagaraju on 30 Dec 2019 (Knife voluntarily left the company of husband)
  4. K Sreekanth Naik Vs P Nalini and Anr on 25 Apr 2024 [Follow Rajnesh Vs Neha]

 

Bombay High Court

  1. Sanjay Sudhakar Bhosale Vs Khristina on 8 April, 2008 (Cruelty not proved)
  2. Sachin Vs Sau. Sushma on 6 May, 2014 (Follow Section 421 of the Cr.P.C. first before arrest)
  3. Bhagwant Narnawre Vs Radhika Narnawre on 05 Apr 2019 (Wife is not a creditor)
  4. Devendra Vs Trupti Devendra on 27 Sep 2022 [Seeking maintenance for daughter after MCD]
  5. Prakash Dheple Vs Vithabai and Anr on 10 May 2024 [Impose interest on Maintenance arrears]

 

Calcutta High Court

  1. Saikat Das Vs State of West Bengal and Anr on 27 Mar 2025 [No maintenance for Deserter wife 144(4) BNSS/125(4) CrPC]

 

Chhattisgarh High Court

  1. Rishikesh Singh Vs Kiran Gautam on 05 Sep 2014 (MCD u/s 13B of HMA does not entitle wife maintenance u/s 125 CrPC)
  2. Jagdamba Trivedi Vs Neha Trivedi on 18 Jan 2021 [Importance of Section 421 Cr.P.C., arrest warrant in 125(3) Cr.P.C. cases; Follow Rajnesh Vs Neha for recovery of the amount of maintenance]
  3. Birendra Kumar Tiwari Vs Neetu Tiwari on 07 Dec 2022 [Major daughter not eligible to seek maintenance u/s 144 BNSS]
  4. Resham Lal Dewangan Vs Suman Dewangan on 09 May 2025 [Once a divorce decree is granted on the ground that wife is living in adultery then, wife suffers from the disqualification to claim maintenance from her ex-husband]

 

Delhi High Court Judgments

  1. Sabina Sahdev and Ors Vs Vidur Sahdev on 9 Jul 2018 [no pre-condition can be laid before receiving Appeal/Revision such as deposit maintenance amount]
  2. Binita Dass Vs Uttam Kumar on 9 Aug 2019 [ Wife who is independent and have source of income, can be a ground to deny interim maintenance]
  3. Sandeep Walia Vs Monika Uppal on 18 Jul 2022 [Petitioner was not truthful in disclosure of his correct income in his affidavit]
  4. Rangesh Srinivasan Vs Madhulika Bawa on 07 Jun 2023 [Stay on Interim Maintenance Order without any pre-condition; relied on Sabina Sahdev and Ors Vs Vidur Sahdev on 9 Jul 2018]
  5. Zahir Obdullah and Anr Vs Omar Abdullah on 31 Aug 2023 [Interim enhanced to 1.5 lakhs from 75,000; despite the law providing, Court granted maintenance to major children!]
  6. Sachin Kumar Daksh Vs Mamta Gola and Anr on 16 Feb 2024 [Allowed Revised Income affidavit as per Rajnesh Vs Neha judgement though held that earlier affidavit is not obliterated]
  7. Megha Khetrapal Vs Rajat Kapoor on 19 Mar 2025 [No Interim Maintenance from previously working wife]
  8. Naveen Kumar Vs Kavita on 01 Jul 2025 [When ad interim Maintenance can be granted; Interim Maintenance cannot be granted without an Interim Maintenance application]
  9. Nidhi Jain Vs Ankit Jain on 31 Jul 2025 [Allow 311 recall petition]
  10. Geeta and Anr Vs State and Anr on 10 Sep 2025 [Concealing actual income and withholding the most relevant documents in his affidavit which alone could establish her present financial incapacity should lead to adverse inference against wife]
  11. Arshi Parveen Vs Maqsood on 5 Jan 2026 [Courts can assess a husband’s income on minimum wages where financial disclosure is incomplete and enhanced interim maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C.
  12. Tasmeer Qureshi Vs Asfia Mazaffar on 29 Oct 2025 [Courts must assess income before fixing interim maintenance and remanded the matter for fresh determination.]
  13. Vinod Kumar Vs Seema Devi and Anr on 16 Mar 2026

Trial Courts:

  1. Neeraj Aggarwal Vs Veeka Aggarwal on September 19, 2007 (Educated and Working Wife (even after marriage) not entitled for maintenance)

Gauhathi High Court

  1. Hazi Abdul Khaleque Vs Mustt. Samsun Nehar on 20 Aug 1990 (No arrest can be made for non-payment of maintenance u/s 125 Cr.P.C.)

 

Gujarat High Court

  1. Hemlataben Maheshbhai Chauhan Vs State of Gujarat on 21 October, 2010 (denied interim maintenance to Knife as she is already getting maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC)
  2. Varshaben Himantlal Vejani Vs State of Gujarat on 15 Jul 2016 (Spouses living separately with mutual consent so No maintenance can be allowed; Agreements against Public Policy are void)
  3. Ashokbhai Devsingbhai Chauhan Vs Taraben Ashokbhai Chauhan on 11 Nov 2019 (Wife is not a creditor)

 

Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court

  1. Showkat Aziz Zargar Vs Nabeel Showkat and Anr on 02 Sep 2022 (No maintenance to children once they attain majority, except one exception)

 

Jharkhand High Court

  1. Ramdhani Sah Vs The State of Jharkhand on 22 June, 2016 (No arrest without following sec 421 Cr.P.C.)

 

Karnataka High Court

  1. K.R.Arun vs M.Latha on 22 September, 2014 (Interim is reduced in S24 HMA, to Rs.2000/- from Rs.3000/-, until assets information is received in court)
  2. Dr. Deepak K S Vs Dr. Sowmya Sharath on 23 March, 2018
  3. Darshanik M M Vs Poornima A on 04 Dec 2023 [Not followed Guidelines passed in Rajnesh Pal Naidu Vs Neha Naidu Joshi and Anr on 04 Nov 2020 ]
  4. Y.G. Rajesh Vs M Ramya and Anr on 08 Feb 2024 [Standard deduction not to be considered as salary]
  5. Lakshmayya Vs M.Shivalingamma and Anr on 04 Mar 2024 [ex parte Final Maintenance order set aside]
  6. K.L Rangaswamy Vs Sharadha. D on 20 Mar 2024 [Unclean hands; Liable for perjury; Interim Maintenance denial Order upheld]
  7. Srinivasa D Vs Asha on 20 Mar 2025 [Landmark judgment to rectify baseless Orders of maintenance by Family Court judges in Karnataka]
  8. Vinod Kumar K Vs Chaitra N on 3 Apr 2025 [Unclean hands; Liable for perjury; Interim Maintenance denial Order upheld; Refund of Interim Maintenance amount ordered]

 

Kerala High Court

  1. Rajesh R. Nair Vs Meera Babu on 5 Mar 2013 (Spouses living separately with mutual consent; No maintenance can be allowed)
  2. Arun R.Naik Vs Shwetha Arun Naik and Anr on 17 May 2021 [Direction to enhance Maintenance amount at 10% annually is set aside]
  3. Rijas MT Vs Hafseena M on 15 Nov 2023 [No direct arrest warrant may be issued in case of failure to make maintenance payments]
  4. Abhilash.M.V Vs Soumya Soman on 10 Nov 2023 [Husband not given chance to file objections]
  5. Paul George Vs Emarin Paul on 12 Mar 2025 [No maintenance to a deserting wife]
  6. Ratheesh Vs Sreelakshmi and Ors on 14 Mar 2025 (Even to dispose Interim Maintenance Applications, call for affidavits)
  7. S.Mumthas and Anr Vs M.Nizar @ Nizarudeen and Anr [No direct arrest warrant may be issued without issuing a distress warrant]
  8. Jinesh CR Vs Aswathy PR on 19 Nov 2025 [Maintenance denied due to adultery]

 

Madhya Pradesh High Court

  1. Mamta Jaiswal vs Rajesh Jaiswal on 24 March, 2000 (Educated and Working Wife (even after marriage) not entitled for maintenance)
  2. Nirman Sagar Vs Monika Sagar Chaudhari and Anr on 01 Apr 2022 [No territorial jurisdiction]
  3. Balram Dixit Vs Kiran Dixit and Anr on 17 Jan 2024 [Follow Rajnesh Vs Neha]
  4. Shrikrishna Vs Sunita Bai on 02 May 2024 [Woman whose first marriage is subsisting, is not entitled to maintenance under section 125 CrPC]
  5. Shikha Vs Avaneesh Mahodaya on 10 Sep 2024 [well educated lady who also has her own source of income]
  6. Sumit Raj Shivhare Vs Anushree Gupta Shivhare on 05 Nov 2024 [To enhance Maintenance amount at 5% annually]

 

Madras High Court

  1. M.Chinna Karuppasamy Vs Kanimozhi on 16 Jul 2015 [No maintenance to adulterer wife]
  2. P Amutha Vs Gunsekaran on 23 Dec 2022 (Wife is not a creditor)
  3. N.Santhosh Kumar Vs S.Priyadarshini on 25 Oct 2025 [Lied on the Income Affidavit, so interim maintenance reduced]
  4. Alagarsamy Vs Mangalasundari and Anr on 20 Nov 2025 []

 

Orissa High Court

  1. Madan Kumar Satpathy Vs Priyadarshini Pati on 07 Feb 2025 [Maintenance reduced to a well-educated wife]

 

Patna High Court

  1. Laljee Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar on 16 September, 2011 (Importance of Section 421 Cr.P.C., arrest warrant in 125(3) Cr.P.C. cases)
  2. Gitanjali Devi Vs State of Bihar and Anr on 02 Dec 2023 [Follow Rajnesh Vs Neha]
  3. Rajesh Kumar Vs Nutan Devi on 18 Feb 2025 [To enhance Maintenance amount at 5% annually; if not paid, invoke contempt of courts]
  4. Vivek Kumar Singh Vs Pallawi Kumari on 11 Mar 2025
  5. Ravi Prakash Saxena Vs Priyanka Rani on 04 Sep 2025 [Remanded case back to the same Trial Courts for fresh adjudication]

 

 

Punjab and Haryana High Court

  1. Asha Rani Vs Ranjit Singh on 11 Dec 2024 [No maintenance for Educated wife]
  2. Anu Aggarwal Vs Sushant Aggarwal on 20 Jan 2026 [Concealed material facts in Income Affidavit]

 

Telangana High Court

  1. Ekula Sujatha Vs Ekula Rajender and Anr on 1 Jul 2024 [No maintenance for Deserter wife]

 

Uttarakhand High Court

  1. Anshu Gupta Vs Adwait Anand on 09 Aug 2023 [Mother liable to pay maintenance to minor child]

Index of all Maintenance judgments is here.

Posted in Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications | Tagged BNSS Sec 144 - Order for maintenance of wives children and parents CPC Order 6 Rule 14A - Address for service of notice CrPC 125 or BNSS 144 - Maintenance Denied CrPC 125 or BNSS 144 - Order for Maintenance of Wives Children and Parents CrPC 125(3) or BNSS 144(3) - No Automatic Arrest on Failure To Pay Maintenance CrPC 421 - Warrant for levy of fine CrPC Sec 125(4) or BNSS Sec 144(4) - No Maintenance or Interim To Adulterer or Deserter Wife Follow CrPC 421 For Maintenance Recovery Not followed Guidelines in Rajnesh Vs Neha Judgment PWDV Act Sec 29 - No pre-condition to Deposit Maintenance Arrears Rajnesh Pal Naidu Vs Neha Naidu Joshi and Anr Reportable Judgement or Order Summary Post | Leave a comment

Hemlataben Maheshbhai Chauhan Vs State of Gujarat on 21 October, 2010

Posted on May 20, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

In this Gujarat High Court order, Judge denied interim maintenance to Knife in DVC as she was already getting maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC.

Hemlataben Maheshbhai Chauhan Vs State of Gujarat on 21 October, 2010

Citations:

Other sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/802854/


Index of DV Judgments is here.

Posted in High Court of Gujarat Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision Able To Maintain Herself CrPC 125 or BNSS 144 - Order for Maintenance of Wives Children and Parents CrPC 125(3) or BNSS 144(3) - No Automatic Arrest on Failure To Pay Maintenance CrPC Sec 125 or BNSS Sec 144 - Interim Maintenance Denied Hemlataben Maheshbhai Chauhan PWDV Act Sec 12 - Domestic Violence Application to Magistrate PWDV Act Sec 23 - Interim Maintenance Denied | Leave a comment

Bhushan Kumar Meen Vs Harpreet Kaur on 28 April, 2009

Posted on May 4, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This is a wonderful judgement by the Apex Court with many useful legal points in regards to the modification of maintenance under section 125 of Criminal Procedure Code.

Legal points observed

  1. Home Loan is considered
  2. Maintainability of the application under Section 125 Cr.P.C. on account of the ability of the respondent-wife to maintain herself
  3. However, having regard to the qualifications that she possesses, there is no reason why she ought not to be in a position to also maintain herself in the future.

 

Bhushan Kumar Meen vs Mansi Meen @ Harpreet Kaur on 28 April, 2009

 

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged CrPC 125 or BNSS 144 - Order for Maintenance of Wives Children and Parents CrPC Sec 125 or BNSS Sec 144 - Interim Maintenance Reduced | Leave a comment

Post navigation

  • 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
rkgarimella ramakrishna @rkgarimella ·
31 May

.Take legal action on the mischief mongers? @NCBNOffice @ncbn @OfficeofNL @PawanKalyan @JanaSenaParty @apcpim @CpiAp @AdvocateAsr @SandeepPamarati @apngo_official @AshokParchuri @utfchittoor @Anitha_TDP @Ravinaidu1111 @RamuduM_RCT @IRayachoti @Telugodu1982 @DSGRAJU1 @SVSN_Varma

Reply on Twitter 2060946323273404827 Retweet on Twitter 2060946323273404827 3 Like on Twitter 2060946323273404827 2 X 2060946323273404827
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
rkgarimella ramakrishna @rkgarimella ·
31 May

.1.Please provide online facility for RTI Applications in the state.2. Start two regional offices at Vijayawada and Vizag for Lokayukta and APHRC? @NCBNOffice @cbn_updates1 @OfficeofNL @tv5newsnow @RamMNK @ravivallabha @abvrao @nalamotu @AdvocateAsr @SandeepPamarati @gvreddy0406

Reply on Twitter 2060967039142068602 Retweet on Twitter 2060967039142068602 2 Like on Twitter 2060967039142068602 2 X 2060967039142068602
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
rkgarimella ramakrishna @rkgarimella ·
31 May

.@SajjanarVC_IPS @SajjanarOffice @CVAnandIPS @bandisanjay_bjp @AdvocateAsr @SandeepPamarati @GvNarasaiah @lawyersrinu @apcpim @CpiAp @BjpVarma @BJP4Andhra @IYRKRao @iTDPVinukonda @SriKrishnaLavu @Collector_Plnd @Palnadu_Police @tv5newsnow @MP_Araku @VasBytes @ravivallabha @ANI

Reply on Twitter 2060993042606428296 Retweet on Twitter 2060993042606428296 2 Like on Twitter 2060993042606428296 2 X 2060993042606428296
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
rkgarimella ramakrishna @rkgarimella ·
31 May

.@AdvocateAsr @BhimavaramJSP @bjp4elurujilla @OfficeofNL @JP_LOKSATTA @Anitha_TDP @JSPWestGodavari @KRaghuRaju @BjpVarma @RamanaiduTDP @PawanKalyan @JanaSenaParty @JanasenaBadvel @NagababuPasam @CityJsp @HariramaJogayya @palakollu_NFans @Police_WG @NCBNOffice @VasBytes @DSGRAJU1

Reply on Twitter 2061065013641843078 Retweet on Twitter 2061065013641843078 2 Like on Twitter 2061065013641843078 1 X 2061065013641843078
Load More

Recent Posts

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

Most Read Posts

  • Reply to Section 41A CrPC Notice – Format with Legal Explanation (4,829 views)
  • Anu Aggarwal Vs Sushant Aggarwal on 20 Jan 2026 (3,359 views)
  • Umme Farva Vs State of U.P. and Anr on 14 Jan 2026 (3,187 views)
  • Charge Sheet and Final Report Explained (2,427 views)
  • Jinesh CR Vs Aswathy PR on 19 Nov 2025 (2,123 views)
  • Geddam Jhansi and Anr Vs State of Telangana and Anr on 07 Feb 2025 (2,085 views)
  • Regular Bail Application Format (Section 437/439 CrPC) (1,977 views)
  • Neha Lal Vs Abhishek Kumar on 20 Jan 2026 (1,877 views)
  • Arrest Procedure in 498A cases after Arnesh Kumar (1,779 views)
  • Discharge Application Format in 498A Case – Draft, Procedure & Sample Template (1,561 views)

Tags

Reportable Judgement or Order (433)2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision (411)Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes (381)Landmark Case (381)1-Judge Bench Decision (361)Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to (293)Work-In-Progress Article (215)3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision (101)Sandeep Pamarati (92)Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty (80)Issued or Recommended Guidelines or Directions or Protocols to be followed (71)Perjury Under 340 CrPC (66)Absurd Or After Thought Or Baseless Or False Or General Or Inherently Improbable Or Improved Or UnSpecific Or Omnibus Or Vague Allegations (61)Reprimands or Setbacks to YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh (49)Summary Post (47)CrPC 482 - Quash (43)HM Act 13 - Divorce Granted to Husband (42)Legal Terrorism (41)Not Authentic copy hence to be replaced (40)Divorce granted on Cruelty ground (40)

Categories

Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification (752)Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments (327)High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (186)High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification (164)High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification (112)High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification (93)Legal Procedure (73)High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification (70)High Court of Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification (61)LLB Study Material (58)General Study Material (56)High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification (52)Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications (50)High Court of Kerala Judgment or Order or Notification (46)Prakasam DV Cases (46)Judicial Activism (for Public Benefit) (45)District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification (44)High Court of Madhya Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (38)High Court of Gujarat Judgment or Order or Notification (28)High Court of Telangana Judgment or Order or Notification (27)

Recent Comments

  • The Divorce Law Firm on Life Cycle Stages of a Divorce case
  • The Divorce Law Firm on Life Cycle Stages of a Divorce case
  • ShadesOfKnife on Sandeep Pamarati Vs Ungrateful Knife (IPC 498A Case)
  • KONURU VINAYKUMAR on Sandeep Pamarati Vs Ungrateful Knife (IPC 498A Case)
  • ShadesOfKnife on Lifecycle Stages of a Section 498A IPC Case

Archives of SoK

  • June 2026 (2)
  • May 2026 (24)
  • April 2026 (33)
  • March 2026 (42)
  • February 2026 (30)
  • January 2026 (21)
  • December 2025 (2)
  • November 2025 (3)
  • October 2025 (17)
  • September 2025 (12)
  • August 2025 (5)
  • July 2025 (10)
  • June 2025 (15)
  • May 2025 (3)
  • April 2025 (10)
  • March 2025 (7)
  • February 2025 (8)
  • January 2025 (1)
  • December 2024 (3)
  • November 2024 (4)
  • October 2024 (16)
  • September 2024 (15)
  • August 2024 (14)
  • July 2024 (11)
  • June 2024 (18)
  • May 2024 (13)
  • April 2024 (9)
  • March 2024 (23)
  • February 2024 (15)
  • January 2024 (11)
  • December 2023 (11)
  • November 2023 (9)
  • October 2023 (13)
  • September 2023 (12)
  • August 2023 (15)
  • July 2023 (17)
  • June 2023 (11)
  • May 2023 (6)
  • April 2023 (5)
  • March 2023 (10)
  • February 2023 (9)
  • January 2023 (12)
  • December 2022 (12)
  • November 2022 (8)
  • October 2022 (13)
  • September 2022 (17)
  • August 2022 (10)
  • July 2022 (21)
  • June 2022 (27)
  • May 2022 (23)
  • April 2022 (32)
  • March 2022 (17)
  • February 2022 (6)
  • January 2022 (2)
  • December 2021 (7)
  • November 2021 (7)
  • October 2021 (6)
  • September 2021 (10)
  • August 2021 (31)
  • July 2021 (45)
  • June 2021 (17)
  • May 2021 (17)
  • April 2021 (18)
  • March 2021 (58)
  • February 2021 (14)
  • January 2021 (50)
  • December 2020 (35)
  • November 2020 (68)
  • October 2020 (67)
  • September 2020 (28)
  • August 2020 (41)
  • July 2020 (20)
  • June 2020 (36)
  • May 2020 (40)
  • April 2020 (38)
  • March 2020 (26)
  • February 2020 (43)
  • January 2020 (35)
  • December 2019 (34)
  • November 2019 (4)
  • October 2019 (18)
  • September 2019 (57)
  • August 2019 (33)
  • July 2019 (12)
  • June 2019 (18)
  • May 2019 (5)
  • April 2019 (19)
  • March 2019 (58)
  • February 2019 (11)
  • January 2019 (90)
  • December 2018 (97)
  • November 2018 (43)
  • October 2018 (31)
  • September 2018 (73)
  • August 2018 (47)
  • July 2018 (143)
  • June 2018 (92)
  • May 2018 (97)
  • April 2018 (59)
  • March 2018 (8)

Blogroll

  • Daaman Promoting Harmony 0
  • Fight against Legal Terrorism Fight against Legal Terrorism along with MyNation Foundation 0
  • Good Morning Good Morning News 0
  • Insaaf India Insaaf Awareness Movement 0
  • MyNation Hope Foundation Wiki 0
  • MyNation.net Equality, Justice and Harmony 0
  • Sarvepalli Legal 0
  • Save Indian Family Save Indian Family Movement 0
  • SIF Chandigarh SIF Chandigarh 0
  • The Male Factor The Male Factor 0
  • Unitedmen Foundation a dedicated community forged with the mission to unite men facing legal challenges in marital disputes. 0
  • Vaastav Foundation The Social Reality 0
  • Vinayak my2centsworth – This blog is for honest law abiding men, married or planning to get married 0
  • Voice4india Indian Laws, Non-profits, Environment 0
  • Writing Law Writing Law by Ankur 0

RSS Cloudflare Status

  • Cloudflare Storage Maintenance June 15, 2026
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Jun 15, 12:00 - 13:00 UTC May 28, 22:16 UTC Scheduled - Cloudflare has scheduled maintenance for our backend storage systems. Services will continue to operate normally, but customers will be unable to create/delete/modify tunnels, routes, hostname routes, virtual networks, devices and tunnel configurations via the Dashboard or the public […]
  • Cloudflare Storage Maintenance June 4, 2026
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Jun 4, 12:00 - 13:00 UTC May 21, 00:41 UTC Scheduled - Cloudflare has scheduled maintenance for our backend storage systems. Services will continue to operate normally, customers will be unable to modify configurations via the Dashboard or the public API for a period of up to 3 minutes. This […]
  • Audit Log Delays June 3, 2026
    Jun 3, 19:59 UTC Update - We are continuing to investigate this issue. Jun 3, 19:58 UTC Investigating - We are investigating an issue where Cloudflare Audit Log processing is running behind, causing a delay in timely delivery of audit data. These delays do not impact analytics for DNS or Rate Limiting.

RSS List of Spam Server IPs from Project Honeypot

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

Bad Behavior has blocked 583 access attempts in the last 7 days.

pixel