A false DV case is dismissed on merits.
Kusum and Anr Vs Sandeep Kumar and Ors on 04 Oct 2019Here are the written arguments:
Kusum and Anr Vs Sandeep Kumar and Ors Written ArgumentsA false DV case is dismissed on merits.
Kusum and Anr Vs Sandeep Kumar and Ors on 04 Oct 2019Here are the written arguments:
Kusum and Anr Vs Sandeep Kumar and Ors Written ArgumentsLandmark judgment from Apex Court setting record straight regarding the Shared Household. This is overruled in SC Ahuja case law here.
S.R. Batra and Anr Vs Taruna Batra on 15 December, 2006Indiankanoon.org Link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/594165/
Citations: (2007) 3 SCC 169, 2007(2)ALD66(SC); 2007(1)AWC664(SC); 2007(3)CTC219; 136(2007)DLT1(SC); I(2007)DMC1SC; (2007)146PLR425; RLW2007(2)SC1546; 2006(13)SCALE652; 2007(1)LC0007(SC); 2007AIRSCW1088; AIR2007SC1118; (2007)2SCC(Cri)56; 2007(2)CivilLJ215(SC); 2007LawHerald(SC)92
The index page is here.
This is the judgment from Bombay High Court, in a case of DV filed after twenty seven years of the dissolution of marriage.
From Para 11,
In Zuveria Abdul Majid Patni vs. Atif Iqbal Mansoori and Another, the domestic violence took place between January 2006 and 06-9-2007 on which date first information report under Sections 498A and 406 of the Indian Penal Code was lodged by the wife against her husband and his relatives. It is in the context of these facts, that the Hon’ble Apex Court observes that even if it is accepted that during the pendency of the special leave petition the wife obtained ex parte “khula” (divorce) under the Muslim Personal Law from the Mufti on 09-5-2008, the petition under Section 12 of the DV Act is maintainable.
From Para 14,
Anita Tambe Vs Anand Tambe on 28 February, 2018Concededly, there is no interaction whatsoever between the petitioner wife and the respondent husband since the dissolution of marriage, not a single instance of domestic violence is pleaded in the petition the theme of which is that the petitioner wife is living at the mercy of her elder brother. Even if it is assumed, arguendo, that the limitation prescribed under Section 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code is not applicable, it is trite law, that any initiation of the proceedings under the statute must be done within a reasonable period. Even if the utmost latitude is given to the petitioner wife and it is assumed that she was subjected to domestic violence prior to the dissolution of marriage, the institution of the petition under Section 12 of the DV Act after twenty seven years of the dissolution of marriage is, as observed supra, a gross abuse of the statutory provisions.
Citations:
Indiankanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/175316050/
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
Interesting case. Lot of twists and turns. At the end, the lying knife gets empty bowl.
M.Shasheena Vs M.Anwar on 21 June, 2017[related_posts_by_tax title=”5 Recently Updated Posts, Similar or Related To Above Post” orderby=”post_modified” posts_per_page=”5″ show_date=”true”]
A well-reasoned judgment from Hon’ble First Class Magistrate ably supported by a catena of judgments held that this DVC was an attempt by the knife to usurp the property and nothing to do with domestic violence.
Last nail in the coffin on the money-hungry, gold-digging knife:
A.Sujatha Vs C.Nagaraju on 29 January, 2016When she is having capacity to maintain herself then extending her palm for the alms of the respondent is highly un-acceptable. So as per the Domestic Violence Act, though it is a beneficial legislation but the basic principles cannot be deviated under the facts and circumstances of this case and the petitioner is not entitled to claim any maintenance and for residence.
This DVC is dismissed due to this.
Kondrajula @ Syed Saroja Vs Syed Malik on 20 February, 2013Coming to the aspect of dowry harassment of P.w.1 in the hands of respondent, as the very performance of marriage between P.w.1 and respondent is not proved by P.w.1 and further even P.w.1 failed to prove that both of them lived together under one roof, I am of the opinion that there is no need to discuss anything more with regard to demand of dowry and harassment of P.w.1 in the hands of respondent.
This DVC is dismissed as there is earlier IPC 498A which was dismissed based on Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court judgment in Markapuram Siva Rao & Others Vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 30 April, 2013.
Chandra Sukanya Devi Vs Chandra Srinivasulu on 18 November, 2014Citation:
Indiankanoon.org or Casemine link:
The index page is here.
No DV was proved by Knife hence DVC is dismissed
Saiba Sreedevi Vs Saiba Sridhara Rao on 26 June, 2013
Knife lied in cross-examination in court quite in contradiction with content in her petition and judge tossed it into dustbin.
Kasukurthi Sowjanya Vs Kasukurthi Venkata Rao on 18 February, 2016
The Knife got here DV petition dismissed. LOL
Key points
Gunakala Durga Rani Vs Gunakala Sudhakar on 6 January, 2015
- Unexplained delay
- Dowry not proved
- No return of articles given voluntarily
Bad Behavior has blocked 1308 access attempts in the last 7 days.