Sharnavva @Kasturi Vs Shivappa on 18 Apr 2023

Posted on July 24, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge at Kalaburagi bench of Karnataka High Court held as follows,

From Para 10,

10. The Appellate Court ought not to have gone into the validity of the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent, unless and until the validity of the marriage has been challenged by the respondent before the appropriate Court and it is nullified by the competent Court having jurisdiction to pass such order. The Courts while dealing with the maintenance matters, either under Section 12 of the Act or under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. should not go into the validity of the marriage. However, the Court may peruse the evidence of the wife as to whether she is able to maintain herself or not. Once the trial Court appreciated the evidence and passed an order of maintenance, the appellant Court may either modify it or set aside the same in case it is found that the wife is able to maintain herself. If any order passed by the appellant Court regarding the validity of the marriage or otherwise, it dehors its jurisdiction. In the present case, the Appellant Court gone into the validity of the marriage and set aside the order of maintenance passed under section 12 of the Act, which is beyond its jurisdiction and hence, it is liable to be set aside.

Sharnavva @Kasturi Vs Shivappa on 18 Apr 2023

Citations:

Other Sources:

Index is here.

Robarto Nieddu Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr on 20 Nov 2021

Posted on April 29, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

Relying on Supreme Court judgment here, Single bench of Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur held that non-citizen women residing in India temporarily also are classified as ‘aggrieved person’.

It is noted that as per section 2(a) of the Act of 2005, the definition of ‘aggrieved person’ is given and as per the definition itself, any woman including a foreign citizen who is subjected to domestic violence can maintain an application before the trial court under the Act of 2005.

Not only this, section 12 of the Act of 2005 provides that even an aggrieved person can prefer an application through protection officer seeking the relief under the Act of 2005.

The fact that the respondent No.2 is resident of Jodhpur for last about 25 years and after having solemnized marriage with the petitioner, the incident which is reported in the complaint also took place at Jodhpur and therefore, in view of definitions enumerated under sections 2 (a) and 12 of the Act of 2005, it is held that the application preferred by the respondent No.2 before the trial court is maintainable. The observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Shyamlal Devda & Ors. V/s Parimala reported in AIR 2020 SC 762 also fortifies the fact of maintainability of the application under section 12 of the Act of 2005 in the present case. Para 10 of the judgment rendered in the case of Shyamlal Devda.

A plain reading of Act of 2005 also reveals that protection under this Act is also extended to the persons who are temporarily resident of India being covered under the definition of aggrieved person as per section 2 (a) of the Act of 2005.
Even Article 21 of the Constitution of India extends the benefit of protection not only to every citizen of this country, but also to a “person” who may not be a citizen of the Country. Article 21 states that no person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty except according to a procedure established by law. Therefore, looked at from that angle, a person aggrieved i.e. respondent No.2 is very much entitled to get protection of section 12 of the Act of 2005.

Robarto Nieddu Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr on 20 Nov 2021

Citations:

Other sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/80330536/

Index of DV cases here.

Jovita Olga Ignesia Mascarenhase Coutinho Vs Rajan Maria Coutinho and Anr on 24 Aug 2010

Posted on April 1, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A Bench at Goa of Bombay High Court, held that, Issues may be framed after Hearing Both Parties in a DVC.

From Para 13,

13. In civil proceedings after perusing the claim and the reply or written statement, issues are framed. Issues are framed when a material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the other. The object of framing issues plays a distinguished role in a civil proceeding and the whole object is to direct the attention of the parties to the principal questions on which they are at variance and they are required to be framed for the purpose of having the material points in controversy rightly decided, and to bring a finality in the litigation. Unless proper issues are framed, a party who suffers a Judgment on the basis of findings not based on proper issues may have a legitimate grievance to contend that because of such non framing of issues he has been denied the opportunity of leading proper evidence for rebutting relevant facts. Issues can be of fact or of law and the duty is that of the Court to frame the issues. An issue can also be framed on the basis of the reliefs. Although in cases of this nature where there are no pleadings as such and the applications are filed in the prescribed form by ticking the reliefs sought, it would be desirable that the Court after hearing both the parties frames issues on the basis of the reliefs sought by the Petitioner so that each can meet the case of the other and avoid such orders of remand. If this procedure is followed there is no question of any of the reliefs going unnoticed and undecided, like the case at hand. This can also reduce the controversy between the parties, in case the columns in the application, were ticked earlier without much application of mind.

Jovita Olga Ignesia Mascarenhase Coutinho Vs Rajan Maria Coutinho and Anr on 24 Aug 2010

Citations :

Other Sources :

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5b683c3b4a932645d86ec147

Jennifer Arul Vs Michael Arul

Posted on March 28, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

This is the contempt proceeding under which husband was sent to 3 months simple/civil imprisonment for failing to pay maintenance.

Jennifer Arul Vs Michael Arul on 22 Mar 2021

This is the Review Petition filed by wife

Jennifer Arul Vs Michael Arul on 12 Dec 2018

Michael Arul Vs Jennifer Arul on 26 Oct 2017

Kunapureddy Swarna Kumari Vs Kunapureddy @ Nookala Shanka Balaji Naidu Case

Posted on November 14, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Here is the list of the cases fought by this couple. It is just a hilarious case that there are 11 Respondents arraigned in this case. Go figure!

Kunapareddy @ Nookala Shanka Balaji Vs Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari On 18 April, 2016 : (SC says, amendments in petitions can be allowed, before Court takes cognizance of the case)
Kunapureddy Swarna Kumari Vs Kunapureddy @ Nookala Shanka Balaji Naidu on 12 August, 2016 : (Trial Court doles of relief after relief supported by BS)
Kunapureddy @ Nookala Shankar Vs Kunapureddy Swarna Kumari on 5 January, 2018 : (Husband files appeal at Sessions; return of dowry amount of Rs.3.00 Lakhs and compensation amount of Rs.15.00 Lakhs set aside; despite no evidence for DV, but Monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- is confirmed anyways)
Kunapureddy Swarna Kumari Vs Kunapureddy @ Nookala Shankar on 5 January, 2018 : (Wife files appeal at Sessions seeking enhancement in monthly maintenance; Dismissed)

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

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)
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)
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 (AP HC: 2 grounds for quashing a DV Case, No shared household, any other case dismissed on same allegations; overruled by 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)
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)
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)
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)
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]
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]
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]

MASTER SITEMAP here.

Santosh Bakshi Vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 30 June, 2014

Posted on October 27, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

A peculiar case where the knife filed DV Case on in-laws alone, excluding her husband. The brother-in-law of the knife filed a complaint to police that knife has been filing false cases and police filed a case under IPC 182 after permission from SSP. Knife moved High Court for quash of this case and it was dismissed for lack of merits. Now Supreme Court has set aside this order of High Court and allowed the knife’s petition for quash.

From Para 14,

The complaint, if made, by any woman alleging offence under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 committed by any member of the family, the matter is to be looked upon seriously. The Police without proper verification and investigation cannot submit a report that no case is made out. The Investigating Agency is required to make proper enquiry not only from the members of the family but also from neighbours, friends and others. After such enquiry, the Investigating Agency may form a definite opinion and file report but it is for the Court to decide finally whether to take cognizance for any offence under any of the provisions of the Act.

This is where the judge takes a tangential swipe at a DV case to 498A case. Quite peculiar indeed.

Santosh Bakshi Vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 30 June, 2014

Citations : [2015 ALD CRL SC 1 518], [2014 SCC 13 25], [2014 SCC CRI 5 517], [2014 SCC ONLINE SC 495], [2014 AIR SC 2966], [2014 AIC 140 58], [2014 CRI LJ 4069], [2014 AIOL 394], [2014 BOMCR CRI SC 3 426], [2014 CRLJ SC 4069], [2014 JLJR SC 3 263], [2014 JT 8 574], [2014 RCR CRIMINAL SC 4 175], [2014 SCALE 8 226], [2014 AIR SC 4417], [2014 ALT CRI 3 314], [2014 SCJ 8 179], [2014 AIR SCW 4417]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/181157487/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af4ce4b0149711416147

https://advocatespedia.com/Santosh_Bakshi_vs_State_Of_Punjab_And_Ors_on_30_June,_2014

The High Court order that is set aside is given below.

Santosh Bakshi Vs State Of Punjab And Others on 12 July, 2013

Ravuri Sujatha Vs Hanumantha Rao on 29 August, 2016

Posted on June 28, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

In this case Knife claims to be wife of respondent and he denies same. In this context, this application was moved to receive some documents by the court. and Hon’ble court has held that the documents are received on the record of the case with subject to their proof, relevancy and admissibility.

Ravuri Sujatha Vs Hanumantha Rao on 29 August, 2016

Continue here.

Shambhu Prasad Singh Vs Manjari on 17 May, 2012

Posted on May 21, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This judgment from Delhi High Court clarifies that

a Magistrate, when Petitioned under Section 12 (1) is not obliged to call for and consider the DIR before issuing notice to the respondent. However, if the DIR has already been submitted, that should be considered, in view of the proviso to Section 12 (1).

Shambhu Prasad Singh vs Manjari on 17 May, 2012

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.

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: PWDV Act Sec 12 – Domestic Violence Application to Magistrate

Sharnavva @Kasturi Vs Shivappa on 18 Apr 2023

Robarto Nieddu Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr on 20 Nov 2021

Jovita Olga Ignesia Mascarenhase Coutinho Vs Rajan Maria Coutinho and Anr on 24 Aug 2010

Jennifer Arul Vs Michael Arul

Kunapureddy Swarna Kumari Vs Kunapureddy @ Nookala Shanka Balaji Naidu Case

Domestic Violence Judgments

Santosh Bakshi Vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 30 June, 2014

Ravuri Sujatha Vs Hanumantha Rao on 29 August, 2016

Shambhu Prasad Singh Vs Manjari on 17 May, 2012

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