Kuppusamy Vs Radhika on 21 Jul 2017

Posted on September 12, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A Single judge of Madras High Court held as follows,

From Para 5,

5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the respondent filed a petition for Maintenance in M.C.No.36 of 2015 on the file of the Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Karur and that ex-parte order was passed only in the said case. Subsequently, a petition was filed to set aside the ex-parte order and the proceedings were restored. In such circumstances, the learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the provisions under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and particularly, with reference to Section 12 of the Act. As per Section 12(5) of the Act, the learned Magistrate shall make an endeavour to dispose the enquiry within a period of sixty days from the date of its first hearing. It is surprising to note that the respondent is opposing early disposal.

From Para 7,

7. Hence, the Criminal Original petition is allowed and the learned Judicial Magistrate No.I, Karur District, is directed to dispose of the proceedings in D.V.No.1 of 2016 within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order.

Kuppusamy Vs Radhika on 21 Jul 2017

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/26605471/

Connects to a PIL here.

Ayishabi Vs Shahul Hameed on 16 July, 2014

Posted on September 12, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A Single judge of Kerala High Court held as follows,

From Para 5,

5. It is an admitted fact that, the petitioner filed M.C.155/2013 before the Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Malappuram, under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (hereinafter called the Act), claiming reliefs under Section 18, 19 and 20 of that Act against respondents 1 to 3. It is also mentioned in the petition that, the petitioner also filed Crl.M.P.10228/2013 for interim relief, but that was also adjourned along with main case is the grievance of the petitioner. It is seen from the report that, respondents 1 to 3 appeared and they filed counter also and the matter was referred for mediation and according to the magistrate the mediation report in the case is awaited. But the counsel for the petitioner submitted that, the mediation failed and it is ripe for trial now. It is true that under Section 12(5) of the Act, it is stated that, the magistrate shall take all earnest endeavour to dispose of the case within sixty days of first hearing of the case. But unfortunately, such a mandate could not be fulfilled by the court on account of large pendency of cases before each court. But that cannot be a ground for adjourning the case indefinitely, when the statute mandates for early summary disposal of certain types of cases, which requires urgent attention of the court. Further, even if the court feels that, disposal of the main case will take some time on account of the large pendency of cases before that court, it should have made some attempt to dispose of the interim application filed in that case under Section 23 of the Act, as it is intended to provide interim protection for the aggrieved persons, against any alleged domestic violence in the shared house hold. So under the circumstances, this court feels that, the petition can be disposed of as follows:
The learned magistrate is directed to dispose of M.C.155/2013 pending before that court, as expeditiously as possible at any rate, within three months from the date of receipt of this order.

Ayishabi Vs Shahul Hameed on 16 July, 2014

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/27041307/

Connects to a PIL here.

P Parvathi Vs Pathloth Mangamma on 7 Jul 2022

Posted on August 24, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of Telangana High Court passed note-worthy guidelines in disposing Domestic Violence cases.

From Paras 6 and 7,

6. The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is a legislation enacted to shield the rights of women which are enshrined and guaranteed under the Constitution of India, besides paving way to deal with the matters connected to and arising out of the family disputes in an effective and efficacious manner.
7. When the provisions contained in the said legislation i.e., The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act of 2005”, for brevity) are looked into, it is very clear that the proceedings that would be conducted are more civil in nature. The protection orders that would be granted under Section 18, the residence orders that would be granted under Section 19, the monetary reliefs that would be granted under Section 20, the custody orders that would be granted under Section 21 and the compensation orders that would be granted under Section 22, would be based on the applications that would be filed by the aggrieved persons, the domestic incident reports and the defence taken by the respondents therein. All those proceedings are civil in nature. No doubt, Section 28 (1) of the Act of 2005 lays down that the proceedings shall be governed by the provisions of Code of Criminal Procedure. However, it is specifically mentioned under Section 28(2) of the Act of 2005 that the Court is empowered to lay down its own procedure for disposal of the applications filed by the aggrieved persons or the Protection Officers. May be due to the fact that the power to deal with the domestic violence cases is given to the Magistrate, the litigant public are under the impression that the proceedings initiated under the Act of 2005 are purely criminal in nature.

Guidelines passed in Paras 12 and 13,

12. It is brought to the notice of this Court by the learned Assistant Public Prosecutor that number of Criminal Petitions are filed before the High Court seeking to quash the proceedings in domestic violence cases, only because the trial Courts are insisting the physical attendance of the respondents in those cases for each and every adjournment.
13. Therefore, before parting with the case, this Court considers it desirable to lay down certain guidelines for the Courts of Judicial Magistrate of First Class, which are empowered to deal with the domestic violence cases, to follow so that the parties would not rush to the High Court.
(1)The Courts of Judicial Magistrate of First Class which are dealing with the cases filed seeking various kinds of reliefs as laid down under Sections 18 to 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 should take note of the fact that the proceedings therein are more civil in nature.
(2)When the aggrieved person or a Protection Officer or any other person on behalf of the aggrieved person presents an application seeking one or more reliefs that are enshrined under Sections 18 to 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, upon service of notice as required under Section 13 of the said Act and upon making appearance by the opposite party i.e., respondents therein either in person or through their counsel, the Court shall not insist for their personal appearance for each and every adjournment.
(3)The Courts dealing with the cases under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 shall not even insist for filing an application under Section 317 Cr.P.C.
(4)The persons against whom the applications are filed seeking relief in domestic violence cases i.e., the respondents, however, shall appear in person if a specific direction is given for their personal appearance by the Court during the course of proceedings.
(5)The points enumerated above does not however apply during the course of proceedings that are conducted under Section 31 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
(6) Last but most important is that the Courts of Judicial Magistrate of First Class which are empowered to deal with the matters under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 shall make all endeavour to dispose of the applications filed for grant of various reliefs that are provided under Sections 18 to 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 within a period of sixty (60) days from the date of first hearing, as required under Section 12(5) of the said Act.

P Parvathi Vs Pathloth Mangamma on 7 Jul 2022

Connects to a PIL here.

Do you know that there is time limit of 60 days to dispose of a Domestic Violence case in India under sec 12(5) of PWDV Act?

Posted on August 20, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

Legislature set a time limit of 60 days for a Domestic Violence case to be disposed as prescribed under sec 12(5) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Here are the Rules made under this Act. But the ground reality is totally different. And I decided to address this issue. Head-on.

NOTE: Since too much thought was going into decide if this matter has to dealt as a WP or a WP(PIL), I decided to do BOTH. First a WP/CrlP, for my individual case and then a WP(PIL) for public benefit.

RESULTS:

Won the individual battle here…
Won the PIL battle too despite it getting dismissed by the Honourables. Read further down this page.

Go here for other cases I dealt with personally…

Law in question (as it stands today):

12. Application to Magistrate.—
(1) An aggrieved person or a Protection Officer or any other person on behalf of the aggrieved person may present an application to the Magistrate seeking one or more reliefs under this Act:
Provided that before passing any order on such application, the Magistrate shall take into consideration any domestic incident report received by him from the Protection Officer or the service provider.
(2) xxxxx
(3) xxxxx
(4) xxxxx
(5) The Magistrate shall Endeavour to dispose of every application made under sub-section (1) within a period of sixty days from the date of its first hearing.

Support/Inspiration from some High Courts:

Andhra Pradesh High Court: https://www.shadesofknife.in/naresh-kumar-yalla-vs-state-of-telangana-on-21-jul-2022/
Karnataka High Court: https://www.shadesofknife.in/rajamma-h-vs-thimmaiah-v-on-09-jun-2022/
Telangana High Court: https://www.shadesofknife.in/p-parvathi-vs-pathloth-mangamma-on-7-jul-2022/ [Guidelines passed]
To-do: Find more useful judgments
To-do: Contact Chairpersons of State Women Commissions of various States and ask for timely implementation of DV Act.
To-do: Find oldest ‘pending’ DVC cases in each of the 13 districts of AP, to emphasize the traversity.

Current Status in AP:

Action Taken:

Filed RTI to all 13 District Judge Court Complexes in Andhra Pradesh seeking number of cases closed within 60 working days as prescribed u/s 12(5). If no cases disposed off in 3 years, strike down Sec 12(5) from the Act.

On 2022-06-28:

Sent Reg Posts to all 13 District Judge Courts in AP, asking for information on

how many DV cases were filed in 2019, 2020 and 2021 in their jurisdictional district,
how may were disposed in 2019, 2020 and 2021 in their jurisdictional district, and
how many were disposed within 60 days, in 2019, 2020 and 2021 in their jurisdictional district.

They have 30 days time to reply to me. Will file the PIL in August.

As expected the DV cases closed within statutory 60 days is abysmally low.

Parties:

Petitioner-in-person: Sandeep Pamarati
Respondents: From High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Union of India and State of Andhra Pradesh

1. High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by the Registrar General
  AP High Court Buildings,
  Nelapadu, Amaravathi,
  Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh
  PIN: 522202
2. Union of India, Represented by its Secretary,
  Ministry of Law and Justice, Dept. of Legal Affairs,
  A Wing, 4th Floor, Shastri Bhawan,
  Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi, 110001
3. Union of India, Represented by its Secretary,
  Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs
  Shastri Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road,
  New Delhi, 110001
4. Union of India, Represented by its Secretary,
  Ministry of Women and Child Development
  Shastri Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road,
  New Delhi, 110001
5. Union of India, Represented by its Secretary,
  Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment
  Shastri Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road,
  New Delhi, 110001
6. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
  Home Department, AP Secretariat,
  Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District, 522503
7. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Secretary to Government,
  Law (Legislative Affairs and Justice) Department, AP Secretariat,
  Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District, 522503
8. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
  Department of Women Development & Child Welfare
  Office of Special Commissioner, 4th Floor Jampani Towers,
  Lodge Centre, Amaravathi Road, Guntur-522006
9. National Commission for Women, Rep by Chairperson
  Plot No 21, FC33, Institutional Area,
  Jasola, New Delhi, Delhi 110025
10. Andhra Pradesh State Commission for Women, Rep by Chairperson
  Flat No. 506, 4th Floor, MGM Capital Building, Dr. YSR Arogya Sri Complex,
  Chinakakani, Mangalagiri, Guntur. Pin : 522503
11. National Judicial Academy, Rep by The Director,
  Bhadbhada Road, Suraj Nagar PO,
  Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462044
12. A.P. Judicial Academy, Rep by The Director,
  Gandhi Nagar, Nehru Nagar Colony, West Marredpally,
  Secunderabad, Telangana 500026
13. Law Commission of India, Rep by The Member Secretary,
  Lok Nayak Bhavan, ‘B’ Wing, 2nd & 4th Floor,
  Khan Market, New Delhi -110003
14. Bar Council of India, Rep by the Secretary,
  21, Rouse Avenue, Institutional Area,
  New Delhi Pin Code – 110002
15. Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by The Secretary
  Ground Floor, A.P. High Court Building,
  Nelapadu, Amaravati, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh
  PIN: 522 239

Remedy:

File a writ u/Act 226 read with Art 227 seeking direction from High Court of AP to all the Trial Courts in the State which deal with Domestic Violence cases, to mandatorily invoke the time limit of 60 days to dispose of a DV case, as prescribed under sec 12(5), whenever an application for interim reliefs, under sec 23(1), was prayed/sought for also in the spirit of Sec 309 CrPC.

Dilemma: To file WP or WP(PIL)? Why not, both?

Drafting: WP Done in the form of CrlP r/w Art 226 and 227 here. WP(PIL) is pending (u/Art 226 and 227)

Reliefs:

Call for records for the DV cases are disposed in 60 days from Srikakulam, Visakhapatnam, Guntur, Chittoor, West Godavari, Kadapa, Krishna Districts as they did not give data to RTI applications.
Acknowledge the total failure of the implementation of Statutory Compliance of Sec 12(5) of PWDV Act.
Appoint an amicus/LCI to study reasons for this failure in State of AP.
Direct all District Unit Heads to ensure the DV cases are disposed in 60 days (To tackle such scenarios, you can use the Supreme Court judgment to force the Trial judge to come up with case calendar for the entire case, which is available here)
Setup a periodic monitoring mechanism to report the delays in DV case disposal publicly on AP High Court website.

Supporting Case laws:

Mewa Singh and others Vs Sukhjeet Kaur on 29 April 2013 (PHHC: appearance of respondents disposed off)
Ayishabi Vs Shahul Hameed on 16 July, 2014 (KerHC: Dispose within 3 months)
Kuppusamy Vs Radhika on 21 July, 2017 (MadHC: Dispose DVC in 2 months)
Sushila Devi Vs Vikas Kumar Singhal And Ors on 9 Feb 2018 (RajHC: Dispose within 2 months)
Tillottama Kumari Vs State of Bihar and Ors on 16 May 2019 (PatHC: Dispose DVC in 6 weeks)
Maya and Ors Vs State of U.P. and Ors on 19 Mar 2021 (AllHC: Dispose DVC in 2 months)
Suyalaly and Anr Vs Alphin Jeyasingh and Ors on 29 Nov 2021 (MadHC: Dispose within 2 months)
Vani Santhosh Babu Vs Vijaya Laxmi Vani on 3 Mar 2022 (TelHC: Dispose in 60 days)
Rajamma H Vs Thimmaiah V on 09 Jun 2022 (KarHC: Dispose DVC within 2 weeks)
Mrugesh Wasnik Vs Shweta Mrugesh on 22 Jun 2022 (BomHC: Dispose DVC within 3 months)
P Parvathi Vs Pathloth Mangamma on 7 Jul 2022 (TelHC: Directions issued regd appearance of respondents)
Naresh Kumar Yalla Vs State of Telangana on 21 Jul 2022 (TelHC: Dispose DVC in 1 month)
Sandeep Pamarati Vs State of AP and Anr on 29 Sep 2022 (APHC: Disposal of DVC in 60 days/3 months (around 20 working days in a month); my first win AP HC!)

Writ Public Interest Petition:

Filed this PIL [WP(PIL)/182/2022] in Oct 2022 but got listed on 14 Nov 2022 before Court-1 of AP HC. Prepared well to argue the matter and hoped to get notices issued to 15 respondents on the petition. But the ;category (For Orders of Court) under which this cases was listed’ and ‘no final WP number given’ made it clear to me that this will be dismissed.

Case status:

I went to podium and began with intro as PIP and then informed there is no personal interest in this PIL and how. That’s all… It was dismissed as not maintainable. Not sure what legal reasons were mentioned in the dismissal order. CJ said, tomorrow I will come with a petition to early dispose another kind of case type. I don’t think this is a legal reason.

Here is the Writ Petition Copy:

2022-10-11 WP(PIL) against APHC and 14 Ors v0.1

Here is the dismissal order.

Sandeep Pamarati Vs High Court of AP and 14 Ors on 14 Nov 2022

Interesting update…

Just after a week from date of the dismissal of my WP-PIL, the following Circular gets issued by AP HC in Nov 2022. Interesting, because earlier circular, issued in Oct 2022, did NOT have a deadline!!! Seems my now-dismissed-PIL is working it’s magic.

2022-Oct-20 Circular:

2022-10-20 CIR_ROC559-20.10.22 Directions for endeavoring to enhance the disposals

…. and then…

2022-Nov-23 Circular:

OPCELL-ROC560-23.11.22

—

The following is the circular forwarded to Anantapur District Judiciary.

2022-11-23 Clearance of Old Cases (ALL those cases instituted prior to 2018)

I AM HAPPY AND SMILING.

MASTER LIST here.

Naresh Kumar Yalla Vs State of Telangana on 21 Jul 2022

Posted on August 10, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Telangana High Court held as follows:

4. When there is a specific direction from this Court to dispose of the matter time bound, it is not known how the case is still pending. However, considering the request of the petitioner, the criminal petition is disposed of with the following directions:-
1) The Court of X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, is directed to take up the case in D.V.C.No.61 of 2019 on day-to-day basis and to dispose of the same within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
2) In case, the case is not disposed of within one month, the Court of X Additional Metropolitan Magistrate, Kukatpally, is directed to submit a report to the Registrar (Judicial) narrating the reasons as to why the case could not be disposed of.
3) The above direction is issued not only basing on the merits of the case, but also as Section 12(5) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, clearly mandates that the case has to be disposed of within a period of sixty (60) days from the date of its first hearing.

Naresh Kumar Yalla Vs State of Telangana on 21 Jul 2022

Connects to a PIL here.

Rajamma H Vs Thimmaiah V on 09 Jun 2022

Posted on June 24, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Karnataka High Court upheld the law the way it is.

From Para 5,

5. The application is filed admittedly invoking Section 12 of the Act. Sub-section (5) of Section 12 of the Act reads as follows:
“12. Application to Magistrate.-
(5) The Magistrate shall Endeavour to dispose of every application made under sub-section (1) within a period of sixty days from the date of its first hearing.”
Sub-section (5) mandates that every application filed under the Act shall be disposed of by the Court within six months from the date of its presentation. The order sheet reveals that the application was filed on 12-11-2021 seeking maintenance. Six months have passed by. The order sheet does not demonstrate any consideration of the application. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to a mandamus at the hands of this Court or a direction to the learned Magistrate to dispose of the application for maintenance expeditiously.

Rajamma H Vs Thimmaiah V on 09 Jun 2022

Connects to a PIL here.

Jaspreet Singh Vs Gurleen Kaur on 06 January, 2020

Posted on January 11, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Similar to Kusum Sharma judgment here, Punjab and Haryana High Court also directed all Courts in the twin States and the Union territory of Chandigarh to insist upon affidavit regards the assets, incomes and expenditure of the parties to a matrimonial litigation.

Jaspreet Singh Vs Gurleen Kaur on 06 January, 2020

Citations:

Indiankanoon.org or Casemine link:

Domestic Violence Judgments

Posted on December 17, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

Here is a list of Judgments under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 and various facets of violence/cruelty within Matrimonial relationships under various Statutes even before this Act. Life Cycle of a Domestic Violence case under PWDV Act 2005 here.

Bare Act (along with Statement of Objects and Reasons) is here and Rules are here. A 2-judge bench of Supreme Court passed guidelines to handle multiple maintenance litigation here.

1971-1980

Narayan Ganesh Dastane Vs Sucheta Narayan Dastane on 19 March, 1975 [Definition of Mental Cruelty; Burden of Proof; Proof beyond reasonable doubt; Condonation of Cruelty]

1981-1990

1991-2000

V.Bhagat Vs D.Bhagat on 19 November, 1993 [defined the meaning of Mental Cruelty with respect to Divorce petition]

2001-2005

MS. Bhaskar Industries Ltd Vs MS. Bhiwani Denim and Apparels Ltd and Ors on 27 August 2001 [SC: Not a DV case but talks about Interlocutory Order]

2006-2010

Lata Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another on 7 July, 2006 (Right to Marry a person of one’s choice)
S.R. Batra and Anr Vs Taruna Batra on 15 December, 2006 (Supreme Court defined ‘Shared Household‘)
Samar Ghosh vs Jaya Ghosh on 26 March, 2007 (Mental Cruelty defined)
Abhijit Bhikaseth Auti Vs State Of Maharashtra and Anr on 16 September, 2008 [BomHC: Before granting an interim relief under sub-section 1, an opportunity of being heard is required to be granted to the respondent.]
V.K.Vijayalekshmi Amma Vs Bindu V on 2 Dec 2009 ()
Krishnamurthy Nookula Vs Savitha Y on 9 December, 2009 [KarHC: Audi Alterum Partem, Magistrate must conduct Inquiry in the nature of summary trial before Interim Maintenance]
Vijay Verma Vs State NCT of Delhi and Anr on 13 August, 2010 (Delhi High Court)
Jovita Olga Ignesia Mascarenhase Coutinho Vs Rajan Maria Coutinho and Anr on 24 Aug 2010 (BHC: Frame Issues after Hearing Both Parties)
Rachna Kathuria Vs Ramesh Kathuria on 30 August, 2010 (DelHC: From my favorite judge but bad judgment; deny maintenance in DVC as there was maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC)
Sharad Kumar Pandey Vs Mamta Pandey on 1 Sep 2010 [DelHC: Definition of Residence for Jurisdiction purpose]
Hemlataben Maheshbhai Chauhan Vs State of Gujarat on 21 October, 2010 [GujHC: Since wife was already getting maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC, Court denied interim maintenance in DVC]

2011-2015

Sandhya Manoj Wankhade Vs Manoj Bhimrao Wankhade and Ors on 31 January 2011 (Women can also be made respondents)
Dhaval Rajendrabhai Soni Vs Bhavini Dhavalbhai Soni and Ors on 04 Feb 2011 [GHC: Custody cannot be given to non-custodial parents under DV Act; Only visitation permissible to non-custodial parent]
Inderjit Singh Grewal Vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 23 August, 2011 (1 year limitation of 468 CrPC applies to DV Cases)
V.D. Bhanot Vs Savita Bhanot on 07 February 2012 (DV Conduct of parties prior to PWDV Act are to be considered; Mental Cruelty)
Buravilli Siva Madhuri Vs Sri Buravilli Satya Venkata Lakshmana Rao and Ors on 25 September, 2012 (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
Deoki Panjhiyara Vs Shashi Bhushan Narayan Azad and Anr on 12 Dec 2012 [SC: Unless there is a declaration of nullity/void of the marriage by a competent Court or authority, a aggrieved person can take advantage of benefits under DV Act.]
Ashish Dixit and Ors Vs State of U.P. and Anr on 7 January, 2013 (Quashing of false DVC on relatives of husband)
Mewa Singh and others Vs Sukhjeet Kaur on 29 April 2013 (PHHC: appearance of respondents disposed off)
Markapuram Siva Rao & Others Vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 30 April, 2013 (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
Indra Sarma vs V.K.V.Sarma on 26 November, 2013 (SC: No relationship in the nature of marriage, no DV can apply, No maintenance)
Kolli Babi Sarojini And Others Vs Kolli Jayalaxmi And Another on 29 April, 2014 (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
Koushik Vs. Sau. Sangeeta Koushik Gharami & ors on 05 May 2014 [BomHC: No DV, No Reliefs; not even for children]
Ayishabi Vs Shahul Hameed on 16 July, 2014 (KerHC: Dispose within 3 months)
Santosh Sashkant Dhonde Vs Sarika Santosh Dhonde and Ors on 11 September, 2014 [BomHC: Hearing before Interim Orders]
Chandra Sukanya Devi Vs Chandra Srinivasulu on 18 November, 2014 (JMFC Court, Ongole, Andhra Pradesh)
A.K. Srinivasa Rao and 3 Ors Vs State of AP on 19 January, 2015 (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
P.Sugunamma And Others Vs State Of A.P. on 19 January, 2015 (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
Giduthuri Kesari Kumar And Others Vs State of Telangana on 16 February 2015 (APHC: 2 grounds for quashing a DV Case, No shared household, any other case dismissed on same allegations; overruled by SC in Prabha Tyagi here)
Boddu Anjali and Anr Vs Boddu Annapoornamma and Ors on 17 June, 2015 [Ongole JCJC:]
Gaddameedi Nagamani Vs The State Of Telangana on 17 July, 2015 (APHC: If any application is filed under Rule 37 of Criminal Rules of Practice or under Section 126(2) or Section 205 to represent through special vakalat or through advocate or for one to represent others as the case may be, the learned Magistrate shall entertain, hear and pass appropriate orders granting the same with necessary conditions)
Rajkishore Shukla Vs Asha Shukla on 22 September, 2015 (Madhya Pradesh High Court)
Krishna Bhatacharjee vs Sarathi Choudhury And Anr on 20 November, 2015 (Dipak Misra says, Judicially separated folks are also within the ambit of Aggrieved person)

2016-2020

Kunapareddy @ Nookala Shanka Balaji Vs Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari On 18 April, 2016 (Court can allow amendments to complaint/petition, before cognizance of same is taken by Court)
Prakash Nagardas Dubal-Shaha Vs Meena Prakash Dubal Shah and Ors on 22 April 2016 (Unsuccessful divorce proceedings cannot adversely affect the maintainability of DVC)
Monojit Banerjee Vs Shalini Banerjee on 3 October, 2016 [KarHC: Hold an inquiry and then recorded finding as to grant interim relief or not]
Hiral P Harsora and Ors Vs Kusum Narottamdas Harsora and Ors on October 6, 2016 [Supreme Court strikes down words ‘adult male‘ from the definition of Respondent u/s 2(q) and also the proviso to sec 2(q)]
Dinesh Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P and Anr on 27 Oct 2016 [AllHC: A Revision under Section 397/401 of Cr P C against a judgment and order passed by the Court of Sessions under
Section 29 of the Act, 2005 is maintainable]
Yadlapalli Mary Mani Vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 21 December, 2016 (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
Girish Kumar Suneja Vs CBI on 13 Jul 2017 [SC: Not a DV case but talks about final, intermediate and Interlocutory Orders]
Manmohan Attavar Vs Neelam Manmohan Attavar on 14 July, 2017 (SC: ‘Domestic Relationship’ Necessary To Permit A Party To Occupy ‘Shared Household’)
Kuppusamy Vs Radhika on 21 July, 2017 (MadHC: Dispose DVC in 2 months)
Santineer Vincent Rajkumar Vs R.Rejitha on 3 August, 2017 (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
Jallarapu Laxman Rao Vs Jallarapu Pedda Venkateswarlu on 1 November, 2017 (AP HC: No Revision u/s 397/401 CrPC, as Sec 29 PWDV Act provides Revision/Appeal)
Sushila Devi Vs Vikas Kumar Singhal And Ors on 9 Feb 2018 (RajHC: Dispose within 2 months)
S Vs J on 17 Apr 2018 (DHC: Frame issues after hearing both parties)
Ashmin Kashmiri Vs Pushkar Kashmiri on 04 Jul 2018 (HPHC: No DV, No Reliefs; not even for children)
Sabina Sahdev and Ors Vs Vidur Sahdev on 9 Jul 2018 [DHC: no pre-condition can be laid before receiving Appeal/Revision such as deposit maintenance amount]
Lalita Toppo Vs State of Jharkhand on 30 October 2018 (Live-in partner can also file DV case)
Shalu Ojha and Prashant Ojha case (File income affidavit as Prescribed in Kusum Sharma)
Sangita Saha Vs Abhijit Saha and Ors on 28 January, 2019 (SC: No DV, No Reliefs)
- Upheld Abhijit Saha and Ors Vs Sangita Saha on 17 September, 2015 (CalHC: No DV, No Reliefs)
Ajay Kumar Vs Lata @ Sharuti on 08 April 2019 (BIL pays interim maintenance)
Tillottama Kumari Vs State of Bihar and Ors on 16 May 2019 (PatHC: Dispose DVC in 6 weeks)
Kamlesh Devi Vs Jaipal and Ors on 04 Oct 2019 (SC: No allegations of domestic violence; No shared household)
NS Leelavathi Vs R Shilpa Brunda on 11 December, 2019 (Karnataka High Court)
Prakash Vinayak Gaikwad and Ors Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr on 13 Feb 2020 [BomHC: No Shared household, so no domestic relationship so no DVC maintainable on family members]
N.Prasad Vs Harithalakshmi on 20 Jul 2020 (1 year limitation of 468 CrPC applies to DV Cases)
Latha.P.C and Ors Vs State of Kerala and Ors on 15 Sep 2020 (482 CrPC against DVC is not maintainable; Magistrate u/s 28(2) can apply judicial mind of Preliminary objections)
Satish Chander Ahuja Vs Sneha Ahuja on 15 Oct 2020 (SC: Overruled SR Batra judgment regd Shared Household concept; but also emphasized on the alternate accommodation)
S.Vanitha Vs Deputy Commissioner on 15 Dec 2020 ()

2021-2025

Dr.P.Pathmanathan and Ors Vs V.Monica and Anr on 18 Jan 2021 ()
Masood Khan Vs. Millie Hazarika on 04 Mar 2021 (482 CrPC against DVC is maintainable as per Satish Chander)
Maya and Ors Vs State of U.P. and Ors on 19 Mar 2021 (AllHC: Dispose DVC in 2 months)
Puttaraju Vs Shivakumari on 01 Apr 2021 (MHC: Time limitation applies only for offence u/s 31 but not for the application u/s 12 of PWDV Act 2005)
Robarto Nieddu Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr on 20 Nov 2021 (RajHC: non-citizen women residing in India temporarily also are classified as ‘aggrieved person’)
Suyalaly and Anr Vs Alphin Jeyasingh and Ors on 29 Nov 2021 (MadHC: Dispose within 2 months)
Ravneet Kaur Vs Prithpal Singh Dhingra on 24 Feb 2022 (DHC: Daughter-in-law can be evicted but an alternate accommodation must be provided)
Nahida Rishad Cooper Vs Ali Daruwala and Ors on 25 Feb 2022 (BHC: Relatives who have no shared house-holding can also be respondents as per proviso to Sec 2(q))
- Ali Hamid Daruwala Vs Nahida Rishad Cooper and Anr on 28 Feb 2023 (BHC: Relying on Prabha Tyagi, BHC held that no shared householding requirement is necessary)
Vani Santhosh Babu Vs Vijaya Laxmi Vani on 3 Mar 2022 (TelHC: Dispose in 60 days)
Kamatchi Vs Lakshmi Narayanan on 13 Apr 2022 [SC: Limitation does not apply to Sec 12 applications under PWDV Act]
Bharti Anand Vs Sushant Anand and Ors on 26 Apr 2022 [DelHC: Mere fleeting or casual visits/living, without permanency, at different places shall not make it a shared household]
Prabha Tyagi Vs Kamlesh Devi on 12 May 2022 (SC: DIR is not mandatory; No shared holding required)
Rajamma H Vs Thimmaiah V on 09 Jun 2022 (KarHC: Dispose DVC within 2 weeks)
Mrugesh Wasnik Vs Shweta Mrugesh on 22 Jun 2022 (BomHC: Dispose DVC within 3 months)
P Parvathi Vs Pathloth Mangamma on 7 Jul 2022 (TelHC: Directions issued regd appearance of respondents)
Naresh Kumar Yalla Vs State of Telangana on 21 Jul 2022 (TelHC: Dispose DVC in 1 month)
Altaf Ahmad Zargar and Anr Vs Sana Alias Ruksana and Anr on 02 Sep 2022 (JKHC: After WS, Magistrate may dismiss the DVC and cancel any interim orders passed)
Ragimani Gangadhar Vs Ragimani Padmavathi and Anr on 08 Sep 2022 (APHC: Disclose previous maintenance cases)
Sandeep Pamarati Vs State of AP and Anr on 29 Sep 2022 (APHC: My Own case: Disposal of DVC in 60 days)
Afia Rasheed Khan Vs Mazharuddin Ali Khan and Anr on 10 Oct 2022 (SC: Upheld BHC Judgment stating casual visits/stays do not qualify as temporary stay/residence)
S Anandanatesan Vs P Hemalatha on 23 Nov 2022 [MadHC: No DV, No Reliefs]
Rajesh and Anr Vs Station House Officer and Ors on 05 Dec 2022 [KerHC: the existence of a domestic relationship between the complainant and the respondent is the sine qua non for seeking relief under the DV Act]
Sunil Kumar and Ors Vs Elizabeth on 07 Feb 2023 [KarHC: Rental amount in lieu of accommodation in shared household can be given]
Bhawna Vs Bhay Ram and Ors on 17 Feb 2023 [SC: No costs can be imposed on DV complainant for not proceeding with trial]
Bhanu Kiran Vs Rahul Khosla and Ors on 28 Feb 2023 (PHHC: Interim Orders passed by Magistrate are appealable. Sessions Court can pass Interim Orders)
Abhishek Agarwala and Anr Vs Smti Komal Poddar on 01 Mar 2023 (MegHC: Don’t insist on appearance of Respondents on each and every adjournment)
Murlidhar Vs Sangita on 09 Mar 2023 [BomHC: No DV, No Reliefs]
Kavitha M Vs Raghu on 16 Mar 2023 [KarHC: No need to conduct Inquiry in the nature of summary trial before passing Interim reliefs; Over rules Krishnamurthy Nookula Vs Savitha Y on 9 December, 2009]
Sumeet Vs Himani Sumeet Ninave Nee on 29 Mar 2023 [BomHC: DV allegedly committed outside India can also be tried by Indian Courts]
Sharnavva @Kasturi Vs Shivappa on 18 Apr 2023 [KarHC: No Strict proof of marriage required; No validity of marriage to be checked]
Jaspal Kaur alias Pinki and Ors Vs State of Punjab and Anr on 24 Apr 2023 [Relies on Kunapareddy, Kamatchi, ]
Sanjeev Kumar and Ors Vs Sushma Devi on 01 Jun 2023 [HimHC: Frame Issues after Hearing Both Parties]
Rangesh Srinivasan Vs Madhulika Bawa on 07 Jun 2023 [DelHC: Stay on Interim Maintenance Order without any pre-condition; relied on Sabina Sahdev and Ors Vs Vidur Sahdev on 9 Jul 2018]
Shilpashree J.M. Vs Gurumanjunatha .A.S. on 19 Jun 2023 [KarHC: No maintenance to idle sitting wife]
Mummireddygari Prathap Reddy and Ors Vs Mummireddygari Srivani and Ors on 17 Jul 2023 [APHC: No Shared household, so no domestic relationship so no DVC maintainable on family members]
Dhananjay Mohan Zombade Vs Prachi Dhananjay Zombade on 18 Jul 2023 [BomHC: No Shared household, so no domestic relationship so no DVC maintainable]
Ashwini Pradhan Vs UOI and Anr on 08 Aug 2023 [MPHC: Sections 21 and 31 of PWDV Act are not unconstitutional]
M.R.Somasundaram and Ors Vs B Rahini and Anr on 12 Dec 2023 [MadHC: Approach the Magistrate Court itself and raise the issue of maintainability and other preliminary issues]
Mohammed Yasin Naikwadi Vs Aneesa and Anr on 13 Dec 2023 [KarHC: A protection order under DV Act does not include the order of granting monetary relief of maintenance under Section 20 of the D.V. Act]
Kinjal Jayesh Mehta Vs Disha Jimit Sanghvi and Anr on 14 Feb 2024 [BomHC: Mere casual visits of the Petitioner to the shared household being devoid of any permanency is not sufficient and adequate to constitute residence in shared household]
Kiran Jyot Maini Vs Anish Pramod Patel on 15 Jul 2024 [Interim Maintenance granted]
Palaparthi Shebha and Anr Vs State of AP and Anr on 16 Jul 2024 [APHC: Interim maintenance order is made effective from the date of petition and not from date of Order]
Shikha Lall Vs Prince Agarwal on 7 Nov 2024 [DelHC: Never resided in New Delhi so no jurisdiction under DV Act]
Krishnawati Devi and 6 Ors Vs State of UP and Anr on 22 Jan 2025 [AllHC: No Shared household, so no domestic relationship so no DVC maintainable on family members; Verify shared household condition satisfied or not before issuing notices; Dispose within 60 days]
Kalavakuru Srinivas Kumar Reddy Vs Kalavakuru @ Revuru Sujatha and Ors on 05 Feb 2025 [APHC: Follow Rajnesh Vs Neha]
Geddam Jhansi and Anr Vs State of Telangana and Anr on 07 Feb 2025 [SC: DVC proceedings quash for same allegations under Article 142 of Constitution]
Vishal Shah Vs Monalisha Gupta and Ors on 20 Feb 2025 [SC: there is no requirement for the personal presence/appearance of any party in the proceedings under the DV Act, because they are quasi-criminal in nature and do not entail any penal consequences]
Srinivasa D Vs Asha on 20 Mar 2025 [Landmark judgment to rectify baseless Orders of maintenance by Family Court judges in Karnataka]
Abhijit Ankush Shelke and Ors Vs Shubhangi Abhijit Shelke and Anr on 09 May 2025 [SC: Voice sample may be compelled as per Sec 28(2) of PWDV Act and Article 20(3) will not apply]
Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi Vs Vidhi Rawal on 19 May 2025 [SC: High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash proceedings of an application under Section 12(1) or orders passed in accordance with Sections 18 to 23 of the DV Act, 2005]

2026-2030

Deepak Gangadhar Dadge Vs Vijaya and Anr on 17 Jan 2026 [BHC: No suo moto perjury proceedings initiated]
Mariya Zafar and Anr Vs State of UP and Anr on 31 Mar 2026
Rani Bibi Vs Sk Nurullah and Ors on 8 Dec 2025 [CalHC : A wife can file a DV Act case from her temporary residence]
Dinesh kumar Vs Neeti and Ors on 4 Apr 2026
Pranjal Poddar and Ors Vs Shivani Gupta on 21 Apr 2026 [AllHC: DVC Quashed against relatives other than husband]
Ravi S Vs Sahana Devi A and Ors on 18 Jun 2026 [KarHC: Interim Maintenance to wife set aside as she is having more income than husband]

MASTER SITEMAP here.

K.Niranjani Vs R.T.Dinesh on 25 June, 2012

Posted on November 7, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

The Metropolitan Magistrate had dismissed the DVC due to absence of the complainant on 1 date and acquitted the husband under 256 CrPC with this reasoning.

From Para 7,

Admittedly, on 19.10.2010, due to non-appearance of the complainant/appellant herein, complaint was dismissed and the accused were acquitted, against the same only, the present appeal has been preferred. While perusing the order, the learned XV Metropolitan Magistrate has specifically mentioned as follows:
“Complainant absent. No representation. Respondent 1 present. Respondents 2 & 3 are absent. Petition u/s 317 Cr.P.C. filed allowed. Direction issued by the Fast Track Court to dispose within the stipulated time. Even after specific direction to appear & proceed with the case complainant is absent. No representation. Hence complaint is dismissed. Accused are acquitted.

The Hon’ble High Court of Madras has set aside the acquittal order with this reasoning picked from Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment from 2004. There is a later judgment from Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2008 on same subject here.

From Para 8,

At this juncture, it is appropriate to consider the decision relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant reported in 2004 (1) CTC 689 (R.Sekar v. S.Rajendran) in para-4, it reads as follows:
“4.The Supreme Court in the case in Associated Cement Co. Ltd. Vs. Keshjvanand 1998 Crl.L.R. 856 has held as follows:
“Two constraints are imposed on the Court for exercising the power under section 256. First is, if the Court thinks that in a situation it is proper to adjourn the hearing, then the Magistrate shall not acquit the accused. Second is, when the Magistrate considers that personal attendance of the complainant is not necessary on that day, the Magistrate has the power to dispense with his attendance and proceed with the case. When the Court notices that the complainant is absent on a particular day, the Court must consider whether personal attendance of the complainant is essential on that day for the progress of the case and also whether the situation does not justify the case being adjourned to another date due to any other reason. If the situation does not justify the case being adjourned the Court is free to dismiss the complaint and acquit the accused. But if the presence of the complainant on that date was quite unnecessary, then resorting to the step of axing down the complaint may not be proper exercise of power envisaged in the Section. The discretion must, therefore, be exercised judicially and fairly without impairing the cause of administration of criminal justice.“

K.Niranjani Vs R.T.Dinesh on 25 June, 2012

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

Kolli Babi Sarojini And Others Vs Kolli Jayalaxmi And Another on 29 April, 2014

Posted on September 18, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

A knife like complainant who by her adulterous life caused mental agony and family disorder both for husband and children was shown the door by the hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh in this Criminal Revision on a DV Case which was allowed.

The knife was living in adultery and neglected/left the children and ultimately wanted property of the brother of husband and custody of major and married children!!

Highlight

As per the provisions of the Act, the proceedings have to be held in camera and to be tried summarily. According to the provisions of the Act, time fixed is 60 days for disposal from the date of the first hearing. This Act is to provide speedy remedy for deserving aggrieved person and for that reason, a summary enquiry is contemplated

Kolli Babi Sarojini And Others Vs Kolli Jayalaxmi And Another on 29 April, 2014

Citation: [2015 ALL M.R. (Cri.) Journal 178]

Indiankanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/112132700/

The index page is here.

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: PWDV Act Sec 12(5) – Dispose In 60 Days

Kuppusamy Vs Radhika on 21 Jul 2017

Ayishabi Vs Shahul Hameed on 16 July, 2014

P Parvathi Vs Pathloth Mangamma on 7 Jul 2022

Do you know that there is time limit of 60 days to dispose of a Domestic Violence case in India under sec 12(5) of PWDV Act?

I AM HAPPY AND SMILING.

Naresh Kumar Yalla Vs State of Telangana on 21 Jul 2022

Rajamma H Vs Thimmaiah V on 09 Jun 2022

Jaspreet Singh Vs Gurleen Kaur on 06 January, 2020

Domestic Violence Judgments

K.Niranjani Vs R.T.Dinesh on 25 June, 2012

Kolli Babi Sarojini And Others Vs Kolli Jayalaxmi And Another on 29 April, 2014