Read a nice story in this case.
No reliefs from other respondents as none were requested in the petition.
R.Jyothi Vs K.Chandra Babu on 03 November, 2017There is no relief order against respondents 2 to 5 as the petitioner did not asked any relief from respondents 2 to 5.
[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 new story to be heard in this ex parte order. Protection, Maintenance and Compensation orders are granted.
T.V.Vyshnavi Vs N.Govindaraj on 12 January, 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”]
Another ex parte order in DV case.
A key observation by Magistrate
The Petitioner has also sought for compensation Rs.10,00,000/- from the 1st Respondent. But she did not specify as to on what counts she had sought such compensation. In these circumstances, the mere averment in the Petition is not sufficient to grant compensation to the Petitioner, since the tie between the Petitioner/ Aggrieved Person is sacred the marital tie and it cannot be equated with any business relation wherein the damages or compensation will be paid for breach.
N.Sumithra Vs R.K.Govinda Rajulu on 30 October, 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”]
In this order from Chittor Magistrate court, all 6 respondents were set ex-parte. Just by the deposition/evidence of the knife, the magistrate believed that P.W.1 was subjected to domestic violence by demanding additional dowry.
Nice…
A.Bharathi Vs K.Bhaskar on 26 July, 2018[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”]
High Court of Kerala has delivered this order wherein it held that, “these provisions do not prohibit the spouse, who has obtained an ex parte decree of divorce, to marry again before the expiry of the time for filing an application to set aside the ex parte decree or during the pendency of such an application filed by the opposite spouse.”
From Para 25,
Taking cue from the decision of the Supreme Court in Parimal (supra), we are of the firm view that remarriage of the spouse who obtained the ex parte decree of divorce will notrender the application for setting aside the ex parte decree filedby the opposite spouse infructuous. Remarriage of the spouse is not a relevant factor to be taken into account in deciding the merits of an application filed for setting aside an ex parte decree of divorce. The application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure has to be considered on its own merits within the four corners of that provision.
From Para 27,
The lower court has observed that remarriage of the appellant would amount to bigamy. Learned counsel for theappellant submitted that this observation made by the lower court is wrong and unwarranted. We find force in this submission.
From Para 28,
Denny Pazhoor Vs Greeta Sunitha Vincent on 17 October, 2018The following ingredients are necessary to constitute bigamy:
(1) the accused must have contracted first marriage;
(2) he must have married again;
(3) the first marriage is subsisting at the time of the second marriage and
(4) the spouse must be living.
[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”]
Another one of those ex parte DVC dole outs to Knife.
Darsi Saritha Vs Darsi Srinivasa Rao on 24 June, 2013
The Hon’ble Apex Court has explained the following in this landmark judgment
Arjun Singh vs Mohindra Kumar & Ors on 13 December, 1963
No DV was proved by Knife hence DVC is dismissed
Saiba Sreedevi Vs Saiba Sridhara Rao on 26 June, 2013
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.
Pathan Bazidhunnisa Vs Shaik Shafiul Rahman on 21 July, 2016
