Pathan Bazidhunnisa Vs Shaik Shafiul Rahman on 21 July, 2016

Posted on July 7, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Another sh_t of judgment here. Read this entire Para 9 for the entertainment.

As seen the allegations of the petitioner, she was being demanded by the Respondents for want of additional dowry. But there is no proof for that. This Court feels that demanding additional dowry is not an offence. As far as the Domestic Violence Act is concerned, to deal the said offence, there is a separate legislation is enacted. But the quantum of mental agony which an innocent woman faced when she is not in a position to meet the financial requirements of the husband shall have to be understand in the prospective of legislation. The petitioner stated in her evidence that the Respondents harassed her for want of additional dowry. For asking the proof of Domestic Harassment against a woman, is not feasible in all the circumstances. It is depend upon the circumstances of a party. When the husband demands additional dowry, the demand must be took place inside the wall and no third party will have an opportunity to witness the said demand. Logically no husband demands the dowry or other articles in front of others. Obviously, any demand for want of dowry will be took place within four corners of the wall. For proving that fact, evidence may not require. The victim evidence itself is sufficient to prove her case. It is not a standard proof of believing of a particular fact. It is depend upon the circumstances. When the allegation of harassment was depicted by the petitioner herself, the demeanor of the witness manner which she speaks will play a vital role in deciding the case. Because, no third party will have an opportunity to see the harassment alleged to be happened against the petitioner. Therefore, this court feels that Pw1 evidence is alone sufficient to prove her version. If the respondents really did not commit any offence, they should come to the court and defend the case. But the defendants did not choose to put forth their defence in any manner. They fail to attend before this court in all hearing dates. In view of the no challenging the testimony of witness, this court holds the issue in favor of petitioner.

Challa Mahalakshmi Vs Challa Babu Rao on 16 April, 2018

Posted on June 29, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

In this case, there was mischief played by husband together with his mother to usurp the portion of home which is in the name in wife.

From Para 9,

Therefore, in view of foregoing discussion this Court holds that the petitioner is entitled to reside her own house as she is the absolute rightful owner of the house sanctioned to her by the government under DK Patta for an extent of Ac.0-03 cents in the Sy.No.214 of Maddipadu village.

From Para 10,

In exercise of the powers conferred under section 37 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the Central Government makes rules under Rules 6 :- Application to the Magistrate:- (1) Every application of the aggrieved person under section 12 shall be in Form-II or as nearly as possible thereto. Hence, from the perusal of the aforesaid provision of law, it is clear that it is not imperative for the court to file Form-II.

Further see section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005:- An applicant/complainant can be filed before the Court either by an aggrieved person or by a Protection Officer or any other person on behalf of the aggrieved person. In this way section 12(1) does not contemplated that such application should invariably be accompanied by a report from a protection officer. On perusal of proviso appended to the provision, it appears that before passing any order on the application, it is obligatory on the Court to take into consideration any report received by it from the protection officer or the service provider. Neither it is obligatory to the Court to call such report nor it is necessary that before issuance of the notice to the respondents it was obligatory for the court to consider the report. However, if any report from the protection officer is available before the Court that shall taken into consideration, but the law does not impose pre-condition for the Court to call for a report from the protection officer.

Domestic Violence, is, perse, not a criminal offence, but is defined extensively and comprehensively to include various conditions.

Challa Mahalakshmi Vs Challa Babu Rao on 16 April, 2018

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

Tagaram Raja Kumari Vs Cherukuri Aruna Kumar on 20 January, 2015

Posted on June 29, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Hon’ble court in this judgment ordered monthly maintenance, protection order, residence order, compensation and also litigation costs.

From Para 10,

The respondents dispute the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent no.1 and the status of the petitioner as the legally wedded wife of the respondent no.1. No doubt the petitioner did not produce any marriage certificate issued by the authorities of Poleramma temple, Nalgonda, and admittedly PW2 did not attend their marriage, however, the petition under section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, is maintainable even if a woman has failed to prove that she is the legally wedded wife of the man, provided she shows a domestic relationship existed between them, and that she had lived together along with the man in the shared house hold. Such evidence is given by PW1 before this Court, and that there is no evidence in rebuttal. The evidence of PW1 regarding domestic relationship with respondent no.1 in the shared household and her subjection to domestic violence by the respondents is also corroborated with the evidence of PW2, her paternal grandfather, and the said testimonies of PW1 and PW2 is also not destroyed in material particulars by the respondents during the course of their cross-examination except giving suggestions that were denied by them. When the respondents denies the relationship itself, it can be used as one of the circumstances against them for the proof of domestic violence. The evidence of PW1 and PW2 prove that the petitioner was neglected by the respondents and subjected to domestic violence for dowry. This point is answered accordingly in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.

Tagaram Raja Kumari Vs Cherukuri Aruna Kumar on 20 January, 2015

Kandula Lakshmi Vs Kandula Raghava Rao on 22 December, 2015

Posted on June 29, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

In this case, the Husband has not filed a Counter in response to DV Case on him by his Knife but did a namesake cross-examination. Hon’ble Court has granted Maintenance, Residential and Compensation reliefs as there was no challenge made to the allegations of Knife.

Kandula Lakshmi Vs Kandula Raghava Rao on 22 December, 2015

Peddi Anusha Vs Peddi Vamsi Krishna on 4 August, 2016

Posted on June 28, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

In this case, Hon’ble Court has set the Husband his family as ex parte as the husband just filed a Counter in response to a DV Case on him by his Knife but later did not join the proceedings ever. Granted Maintenance and Compensation as there was no challenge made to the allegations of Knife.

Peddi Anusha Vs Peddi Vamsi Krishna on 4 August, 2016

Barakam Rama Devi Vs Barakam Venu Babu on 6 February, 2017

Posted on June 28, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Domestic Violence is proved in this case and reliefs granted by Hon’ble Court. Illegal affair is alleged by Husband and Wife Could not produce any documentary evidence to prove his salary or agricultural land.

Barakam Rama Devi Vs Barakam Venu Babu on 6 February, 2017

Guduri Niroosha Vs Guduri Dakshina Murthy on 16 October 2017

Posted on June 28, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

In this case, Domestic Violence on Knife by husband is proved hence all reliefs requested are granted by Hon’ble Court.

Guduri Niroosha Vs Guduri Dakshina Murthy on 16 October 2017

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: PWDV Act Sec 12 – DV Case Proved And Reliefs Granted

Pathan Bazidhunnisa Vs Shaik Shafiul Rahman on 21 July, 2016

Challa Mahalakshmi Vs Challa Babu Rao on 16 April, 2018

Tagaram Raja Kumari Vs Cherukuri Aruna Kumar on 20 January, 2015

Kandula Lakshmi Vs Kandula Raghava Rao on 22 December, 2015

Peddi Anusha Vs Peddi Vamsi Krishna on 4 August, 2016

Barakam Rama Devi Vs Barakam Venu Babu on 6 February, 2017

Guduri Niroosha Vs Guduri Dakshina Murthy on 16 October 2017