web analytics

Menu

Skip to content
Shades of Knife
  • Home
  • True Colors of a Vile Wife
  • Need Inspiration?
  • Blog Updates
  • SOK Gallery
  • Vile News Reporter
  • About Me
  • Contact Me

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: HM Act 11 – Void marriages

Harpreet Kaur and Anr Vs State of Punjab and Ors on 01 Nov 2021

Posted on April 4, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A short judgment from a single judge says as follows (Picking exact same works from here):

Prayer in this petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is for issuance of directions to respondents No.1 to 3 to protect the life and liberty of the petitioners at the hands of private respondents as the petitioners are in live-in-relationship against the wishes of the private respondents.
Perusal of file shows that petitioner No.1 Harpreet Kaur aged about 23 years is legally wedded wife of respondent No.4 Gurjant Singh, and without seeking divorce from her spouse she is living a lustful and adulterous life with petitioner No.2. Once petitioner No.1 is a married woman being wife of respondent No.4-Gurjant Singh, the act of petitioners particularly petitioner No.2 may constitute an offence under Sections 494/495 IPC. Such a relationship does not fall within the phrase “live-in-relationship” or “relationship” in the nature of marriage.
Petitioners have no legal right for protection on the facts of the present case inasmuch as the protection as being asked may amount to protection against commission of offence under Section 494/495 IPC. This petition has been filed just to obtain a seal of this Court on their so called live-in-relationship. On the face of it, the representation (Annexure P-3) appears to be a fake document as no receipt or diary number of the office of Senior Superintendent of Police, Barnala is given or attached.
In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed.

Harpreet Kaur and Anr Vs State of Punjab and Ors on 01 Nov 2021
Posted in High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision Harpreet Kaur and Anr Vs State of Punjab and Ors HM Act 11 - Void marriages HM Act 17 - Punishment of Bigamy HM Act 5 - Conditions for a Hindu Marriage IPC 494 - Marrying again during life-time of husband or wife IPC 495 - Same offence with concealment of former marriage from person with whom subsequent marriage is contracted Misinterpretation of Earlier Judgment or Settle Principle of Law Non-Reportable Judgement or Order | Leave a comment

Asha Devi and Anr Vs State of UP and 2 Ors on 1 Dec 2020

Posted on April 4, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench at Allahabad High Court held as follows:

From Para 16,

16. According to own case of the petitioners, the petitioner no.1 is still a legally wedded wife of one Mahesh Chandra. As per own alleged application dated 17.09.2020 (as reproduced in para 6 above), the petitioners are living as husband and wife and they have sought protection from interference in their living together as husband and wife. Once the petitioner No.1 is a married woman being wife of one Mahesh Chandra, the act of petitioners particularly the petitioner No.2, may constitute an offence under Sections 494/495 I.P.C. Such a relationship does not fall within the phrase “live-in-relationship” or “relationship in the nature of marriage”. The writ petition has been filed by the petitioners for protection from interference by others in their living as husband and wife. If the protection as prayed is granted, it may amount to grant protection against commission of offences under Sections 494/495 I.P.C.

From Para 18,

18. It is settled law that writ of mandamus can be issued if the petitioner has a legal right to the performance of a legal duty by the party against whom the mandamus is sought and such right must be subsisting on the date of the petition. Similar view has also been taken by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kalyan Singh vs. State of U.P. 13. Applying the principles of issuance of writ of mandamus on the facts of the present case, we find that the petitioners have no legal right for protection on the facts of the present case inasmuch as such the protection as being asked, may amount to protection against commission of offence under Section 494/495 I.P.C. It is well settled law that writ of mandamus can not be issued contrary to law or to defeat a statutory provision including penal provision. The petitioners do not have legally protected and judicially enforceable subsisting right to ask for mandamus.

Asha Devi and Anr Vs State of UP and 2 Ors on 1 Dec 2020
Posted in High Court of Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Asha Devi and Anr Vs State of UP and 2 Ors HM Act 11 - Void marriages HM Act 17 - Punishment of Bigamy HM Act 5 - Conditions for a Hindu Marriage IPC 494 - Marrying again during life-time of husband or wife IPC 495 - Same offence with concealment of former marriage from person with whom subsequent marriage is contracted Judiciary Antics Misinterpretation of Earlier Judgment or Settle Principle of Law Non Application or Exercise of Judicial Mind Reportable Judgement or Order | Leave a comment

Harkanwalpreet Singh Vs Harshpreet Kaur on 17 Jan 2014

Posted on July 21, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

A division declared a null and void marriage, a null and void marriage. hehehe. Check the list of events/dates…

  • a divorce petition between the respondent-Harshpreet Kaur and said Varinder Singh Thandi was filed on 23.12.2006
  • the marriage between the parties was solemnized on 21.2.2007
  • a divorce petition was pending between the respondent-Harshpreet Kaur and said Varinder Singh Thandi was decided on 18.1.2010
  • the copy of the judgment dated 18.1.2010 (Ex.P-3) and copy of decree sheet dated 18.1.2010 (Ex.P-4) whereby divorce was granted to the respondent in respect of her earlier marriage
  • she was in India as she arrived on 01.1.2012
  • husband came to know that the respondent-Harshpreet Kaur was already married with one Varinder Singh Thandi in June, 2012
  • there was no cohabitation between the parties after June, 2012
  • thereafter she left for USA on 05.10.2012.
  • She had again come to India on 10.1.2014 and was residing with her parents.

Finally,

In the facts and circumstances, the respondent has admitted the case of the appellant. It is accepted by her that she had a spouse living at the time of her marriage with the appellant. This indeed contravenes Section 5(i) of the Act. As such merely because they have been married for a considerable time, it cannot per se be said that they are acting in collusion with each other. It is better if the marriage is declared null and void on the basis of the accepted position rather than making the parties go through a protracted litigative process. Besides, it is the statutory provision of Section 5(i) of the Act, which has been infringed and there is no estoppel against a statute. Therefore, in view of the admission on the part of the respondent that she had a spouse living at the time when her marriage was solemnized with the appellant-Harkanwalpreet Singh, we find no reason, why the marriage between the parties should not be declared void as it contravenes Section 5(i) of the Act.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court is set aside and the marriage between the parties is declared void. There shall be no order as to costs.

Harkanwalpreet Singh Vs Harshpreet Kaur on 17 Jan 2014

Citations : [2015 DMC P&H 1 225], [2014 AIR P&H 60], [2014 SCC ONLINE P&H 1049]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/120220289/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/56099ebae4b01497113dccfa

Posted in High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Harkanwalpreet Singh Vs Harshpreet Kaur HM Act 11 - Void marriages | Leave a comment

Gullipilli Sowria Raj Vs Bandaru Pavani on 4 Dec 2008

Posted on July 10, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

Going through the Preamble of the HMA 1955, the division bench of the Supreme Court held that the marriage of a Hindu with a Christian is void ab initio.

From Para 18,

18. Although, an attempt has been made to establish that the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, did not prohibit a valid Hindu marriage of a Hindu and another professing a different faith, we are unable to agree with such submission in view of the definite scheme of the 1955 Act.

From Para 20,

20.As submitted by Mr. Rao, the Preamble itself indicates that the Act was enacted to codify the law relating to marriage amongst Hindus. Section 2 of the Act which deals with application of the Act, and has been reproduced hereinabove, reinforces the said proposition.

From Para 21, Use of ‘may’ in section 5 of HMA

21.Section 5 of the Act thereafter also makes it clear that a marriage may be solemnized between any two Hindus if the conditions contained in the said Section were fulfilled. The usage of the expression ‘may’ in the opening line of the Section, in our view, does not make the provision of Section 5 optional. On the other hand, it in positive terms, indicates that a marriage can be solemnized between two Hindus if the conditions indicated were fulfilled. In other words, in the event the conditions remain unfulfilled, a marriage between two Hindus could not be solemnized. The expression ‘may’ used in the opening words of Section 5 is not directory,  as has been sought to be argued, but mandatory and non-fulfilment thereof would not permit a marriage under the Act between two Hindus. Section 7 of the 1955 Act is to be read along with Section 5 in that a Hindu marriage, as understood under Section 5, could be solemnized according to the ceremonies indicated therein.

And finally in Para 22,

22.In the facts pleaded by the respondent in her application under Section 12(1)(c) of the 1955 Act and the admission of the appellant that he was and still is a Christian belonging to the Roman Catholic denomination, the marriage solemnized in accordance with Hindu customs was a nullity and its registration under Section 8 of the Act could not and/or did not validate the same. In our view, the High Court rightly allowed the appeal preferred by the respondent herein and the judgment and order of the High Court does not warrant any interference.

Gullipilli Sowria Raj Vs Bandaru Pavani on 4 Dec 2008

Citations : [2009 MPLJ SC 2 48], [2008 SCALE 16 109], [2008 AIOL 1405], [2009 MHLJ SC 2 850], [2008 SCR 17 35], [2009 ALLMR SC 1 488], [2009 BOMCR SC 5 906], [2009 SCC 1 714], [2009 AIR SC 244], [2008 JT 13 450], [2009 SUPREME 1 145], [2009 SCC CIV 1 326], [2009 AIR SC 1085], [2009 AIC SC 74 33], [2009 CHN SC 1 158], [2009 AIR SCW 244]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/421764/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ae6ae4b0149711413cbe

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Gullipilli Sowria Raj Vs Bandaru Pavani HM Act 11 - Void marriages HM Act 5 - Conditions for a Hindu Marriage Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Reportable Judgement or Order | Leave a comment

Krishnaveni Rai Vs Pankaj Rai and Anr on 19 Feb 2020

Posted on March 14, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

The division bench of Apex Court held as follows,

From Paras 26, 27 and 28

26. It is well settled that a marriage which is null and void is no marriage in the eye of law. Where the marriage is a nullity application for  maintenance is liable to be set aside on that ground alone. Under Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act, a marriage may validly be solemnized between any two Hindus, subject to the following conditions:-
(i) Neither party has a spouse living at the time of marriage [(Section 5(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act];
(ii) Neither party was incapable of giving valid consent of the marriage in circumstances specified in Section 5(ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act;
(iii) The parties to the marriage are of requisite age, that is, the bridegroom should have completed 21 years of age and the bride 18 years of age, at the time of marriage [Section 5(iii) of the Hindu Marriage Act];
(iv) The parties should not be within the degree of prohibited relationship unless the custom or usage governing each of them permits such marriage
[(Section 5(iv) of the Hindu Marriage Act];
(v) Parties are not sapindas of each other unless the custom or usage governing each of them permits between two. [(Section 5 (v) of the Hindu Marriage Act];
27. Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act provides that any marriage solemnized after the commencement of this Act shall be null and void and may on a petition presented by either party thereto, against the other party, be so declared by a decree of nullity, if it contravenes any of the conditions in Clauses (i), (iv) and (v) of the Section 5.
28. A careful reading of Sections 5, 11 and 15 makes it amply clear that while Section 5 specifies the conditions on which a marriage may be solemnized between two Hindus, only contravention of some of those conditions render a marriage void.

And from Para 38,

38. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant has also argued that maintenance cannot be refused on the ground of nullity of marriage, until there is a declaration of nullity of marriage by a competent Court, in appropriate proceedings under Section 11 of the Hindu Marriage Act. We need not go into this question in view of our finding that a marriage contracted during the pendency of an appeal from a decree is not ab initio void, and certainly not when such an appeal is filed after expiry of the period of limitation.

Krishnaveni Rai Vs Pankaj Rai and Anr on 19 Feb 2020

Citations : [2020 SCC ONLINE SC 225]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/81931264/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5e52c0a93321bc1e173f86fe

https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/krishnaveni-rai-versus-pankaj-rai-anr

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision HM Act 11 - Void marriages Krishnaveni Rai Vs Pankaj Rai and Anr Landmark Case Maintenance denied in a Null and Void ab Initio Marriage Reportable Judgement or Order | Leave a comment

Revanasiddappa and Anr Vs Mallikarjun and Ors on 31 March 2011

Posted on April 23, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court was constrained to take a view different from the one taken by it in Bharatha Matha on Section 16(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

From Para 41,

41. In the instant case, Section 16(3) as amended, does not impose any restriction on the property right of such children except limiting it to the property of their parents. Therefore, such children will have a right to whatever becomes the property of their parents, whether self acquired or ancestral.

But thankfully, referred the matter to a larger bench in March 2011.

43. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the matter should be reconsidered by a larger Bench and for that purpose the records of the case be placed before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for constitution of a larger Bench.

Revanasiddappa and Anr Vs Mallikarjun and Ors on 31 March 2011

Citations: [2011 SCJ 4 4], [2011 AIOL 244], [2011 CTC 2 810], [2013 ILR 4291], [2011 SCC 11 1], [2011 MWN CIVIL 3 528], [2011 MLJ 5 392], [2011 GLH 1 757], [2011 JCR SC 2 259], [2011 CLT SC 112 469], [2011 LW 3 255], [2011 SCALE 4 189], [2011 SCR 4 675], [2011 AIC 101 73], [2011 SCSUPPL CHN 4 50], [2011 AIR SC 2447], [2011 CALLT 3 58], [2011 KCCR 2 1531], [2011 AIR SC SUPP 155], [2011 JT SC 4 90], [2011 AWC SC 3 3126], [2011 UJ 2 1342], [2011 SCC CIV 3 581], [2011 KERLT 2 176], [2011 CGLRW 2 13], [2011 CUTLT 112 469], [2011 GUJ LH 1 757], [2011 ALR 86 450], [2011 RLW SC 3 2547], [2012 CCC SC 4 279]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/138849/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609aef4e4b014971141545b


The current status of this case is as follows:

12574_2003_8_5_21000_Order_24-Feb-2020

The earlier Judgment contradicted by this one is Bharatha Matha and Anr Vs R. Vijaya Renganathan and Ors here.

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to HM Act 11 - Void marriages HM Act Sec 16 - Legitimacy of Children of Void and Voidable Marriages Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Obiter Dicta Referred to Large Bench Reportable Judgement or Order Revanasiddappa and Anr Vs Mallikarjun and Ors | Leave a comment

Bharatha Matha and Anr Vs R. Vijaya Renganathan and Ors on 17 May 2010

Posted on April 23, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court has settled the following question of law:

the question of inheritance of co-parcenery property by the illegitimate children, who were born out of the live-in-relationship, could not arise.

Bharatha Matha and Anr Vs R. Vijaya Renganathan and Ors on 17 May 2010

Citations: [2010 AIR SCC 2685], [2010 AIR SCC 0 3503], [2010 CTC 3 654], [2010 JT 5 534], [2010 RCR CIVIL 3 252], [2010 SCCC 11 483], [2010 AD 6 478], [2010 SCC 0 515], [2010 SCCJ 5 442], [2010 ALT 5 4], [2010 LW 4 791], [2010 MLJ 7 953], [2010 SLT 4 419], [2010 AIOL 333], [2010 SCALE 6 53], [2010 SUPREME 4 433], [2010 SCCC CIV 4 498], [2010 AIC 91 54], [2010 CALLJ 2 176], [2010 ALR 81 230]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1513913/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609aee7e4b0149711415176


This is contradicted (but NOT overruled) in Revanasiddappa And Another v. Mallikarjun And Others here.

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Bharatha Matha and Anr Vs R. Vijaya Renganathan and Ors Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to CPC 200 - Second Appeal Evidence Act 112 - Birth During Marrige Conclusive Proof of Legitimacy HM Act 11 - Void marriages HM Act 5 - Conditions for a Hindu Marriage Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Reportable Judgement or Order Revanasiddappa and Anr Vs Mallikarjun and Ors | Leave a comment

Flg. Officer Rajiv Gakhar Vs Bhavana @ Sahar Wasif on 11 May 2011

Posted on January 24, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

A Hindu woman who had converted to Islam and got 2 kids from a muslim husband, after he divorced her via Triple Talaq, re-converted to Hinduism and married this Pilot. Once Pilot realized the conversion and re-conversion episode, he filed for Nullity petition. At Supreme Court, it was held that, the woman was properly divorce from first marriage and was a Hindu, by the time of her marriage, so nullity was denied.

Flg. Officer Rajiv Gakhar Vs Bhavana @ Sahar Wasif on 11 May 2011

Citations: [(2011 RCR CIVIL SC 3 640], [2011 SCC 6 139], [2011 JT 14 530], [2011 SCALE 5 601], [2011 AIR SC 2053], [2011 SUPREME 4 57], [2011 ANJ SC 2 61], [2011 AIOL 373], [2011 SCC CIV 3 234], [2011 ALR 86 902], [2011 CTC 4 783], [2011 LW 4 840], [2012 CUTLT 113 193], [2011 AIR SC 3142], [2011 MAHLJ 5 176], [2011 MPLJ 4 28], [2011 AIC 102 47], [2011 GUJLR 3 2006], [2011 CHN 3 11], [2011 ALD SC 5 51], [2011 AWC SC 4 4282], [2012 CLT SC 113 193], [2011 DMC SC 2 400], [2011 GLR 3 2006], [2011 JCR SC 3 280], [2011 KLJ 2 16], [2011 MHLJ 5 176], [2011 MLJ SC 7 827], [2011 OLR SC 2 108], [2011 RLW SC 3 2683]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/731156/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af00e4b0149711415503


Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Flg. Officer Rajiv Gakhar Vs Bhavana @ Sahar Wasif HM Act 11 - Void marriages Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Nullity Petition Dismissed Reportable Judgement or Order | Leave a comment

Swapnanjali Sandeep Patil Vs Sandeep Ananda Patil on 06 March 2019

Posted on January 23, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

The husband did a ‘Marriage deed’ (whatever that means) separation with his first wife and married the second woman.

13.1 At the outset it is required to be noted that the appellant filed the arriage petition for a declaration to declare her marriage with the respondent as null and void on the ground that, at the time of their marriage, the first marriage of the respondent with his first wife was subsisting; that the  respondent committed a fraud and suppressed the material fact of his first marriage, and in fact, in the registration form he stated himself to be a bachelor.

Swapnanjali Sandeep Patil Vs Sandeep Ananda Patil on 06 March 2019

Citations: [(2019) SCC Online SC 329]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/163532688/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5c8148999eff4345648def96


Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged HM Act 11 - Lied on Registration Form HM Act 11 - Void marriages Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Nullity Petition Allowed Reportable Judgement or Order Sandeep Pamarati Swapnanjali Sandeep Patil Vs Sandeep Ananda Patil | Leave a comment

Search within entire Content of “Shades of Knife”

My Legal Twitter Timeline

Tweets by @SandeepPamarati

My MRA Twitter Timeline

Tweets by @Shadesofknife

Recent Posts

  • Sri Bhagwan Samardha Sreepada Vallabha Venkata Vishwanandha Maharaj Vs State of A.P and Ors on 15 Jul 1999 May 16, 2023
  • Rajendra Kumar Vs Rukhmani Bisen on 02 Feb 2023 May 16, 2023
  • Kalyan Dey Chowdhury Vs Rita Dey Chowdhury on 19 Apr 2017 May 15, 2023
  • Shilpa Sailesh Vs Varun Sreenivasan on 01 May 2023 May 6, 2023
  • State of AP Vs Mannem Trivikram Reddy on 28 Jun 2017 May 3, 2023

Most Read Posts

  • XYZ Vs State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors on 05 Aug 2022 (1,873 views)
  • Premchand Vs State of Maharashtra on 03 Mar 2023 (1,090 views)
  • In Re Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail (Guidelines Issued) on 31 Jan 2023 (899 views)
  • Y.Narasimha Rao and Ors Vs Y.Venkata Lakshmi and Anr on 9 Jul 1991 (682 views)
  • Ritu @ Ridhima and Another Vs Sandeep Singh Sangwan on 15 Mar 2022 (584 views)
  • YS Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs Central Bureau of Investigation on 26 Aug 2022 (560 views)
  • Chintakayala Vijay Vs State of AP and Ors on 05 Dec 2022 (552 views)
  • P Sivakumar and 2 Ors Vs State of Tamil Nadu on 09 Feb 2023 (541 views)
  • Life Cycle stages of a Public Interest Litigation (WP-PIL) in a High Court (538 views)
  • Shilpa Sailesh Vs Varun Sreenivasan on 01 May 2023 (532 views)

Tags

Reportable Judgement or Order (334)Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes (333)Landmark Case (322)2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision (271)Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to (220)Work-In-Progress Article (218)1-Judge Bench Decision (155)Sandeep Pamarati (88)3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision (84)Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty (75)Issued or Recommended Guidelines or Directions or Protocols to be followed (56)Perjury Under 340 CrPC (53)Absurd Or After Thought Or Baseless Or False Or General Or Inherently Improbable Or Improved Or UnSpecific Or Omnibus Or Vague Allegations (52)Reprimands or Setbacks to YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh (49)Summary Post (46)CrPC 482 - Quash (38)Not Authentic copy hence to be replaced (35)Advocate Antics (34)Rules of the Act/Ordinance/Notification/Circular (33)IPC 498a - Not Made Out (32)

Categories

Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification (646)Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments (299)High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (159)High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification (108)High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification (91)High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification (66)High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification (54)General Study Material (54)Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications (48)Prakasam DV Cases (46)LLB Study Material (45)High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification (45)Judicial Activism (for Public Benefit) (41)High Court of Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification (41)District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification (39)High Court of Kerala Judgment or Order or Notification (31)High Court of Gujarat Judgment or Order or Notification (26)High Court of Madhya Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (26)High Court of Calcutta Judgment or Order or Notification (18)High Court of Patna Judgment or Order or Notification (17)

Recent Comments

  • ShadesOfKnife on All Reliefs from Judiciary
  • Veena Reddy.T on All Reliefs from Judiciary
  • ShadesOfKnife on Sanjay Bhardwaj and Ors Vs The State and Anr on 27 August 2010
  • G Reddeppa on Sanjay Bhardwaj and Ors Vs The State and Anr on 27 August 2010
  • ShadesOfKnife on Beena MS Vs Shino G Babu on 04 Feb 2022

Archives of SoK

  • May 2023 (5)
  • April 2023 (5)
  • March 2023 (10)
  • February 2023 (9)
  • January 2023 (12)
  • December 2022 (12)
  • November 2022 (8)
  • October 2022 (13)
  • September 2022 (17)
  • August 2022 (10)
  • July 2022 (21)
  • June 2022 (27)
  • May 2022 (23)
  • April 2022 (32)
  • March 2022 (17)
  • February 2022 (6)
  • January 2022 (2)
  • December 2021 (7)
  • November 2021 (7)
  • October 2021 (6)
  • September 2021 (10)
  • August 2021 (31)
  • July 2021 (45)
  • June 2021 (17)
  • May 2021 (17)
  • April 2021 (18)
  • March 2021 (58)
  • February 2021 (14)
  • January 2021 (50)
  • December 2020 (35)
  • November 2020 (68)
  • October 2020 (67)
  • September 2020 (29)
  • August 2020 (41)
  • July 2020 (20)
  • June 2020 (36)
  • May 2020 (40)
  • April 2020 (38)
  • March 2020 (26)
  • February 2020 (43)
  • January 2020 (35)
  • December 2019 (34)
  • November 2019 (4)
  • October 2019 (18)
  • September 2019 (58)
  • August 2019 (33)
  • July 2019 (12)
  • June 2019 (19)
  • May 2019 (5)
  • April 2019 (19)
  • March 2019 (58)
  • February 2019 (11)
  • January 2019 (90)
  • December 2018 (97)
  • November 2018 (43)
  • October 2018 (31)
  • September 2018 (73)
  • August 2018 (47)
  • July 2018 (143)
  • June 2018 (92)
  • May 2018 (102)
  • April 2018 (59)
  • March 2018 (8)

Blogroll

  • Daaman Promoting Harmony 0
  • Fight against Legal Terrorism Fight against Legal Terrorism along with MyNation Foundation 0
  • Good Morning Good Morning News 0
  • Insaaf India Insaaf Awareness Movement 0
  • MyNation Hope Foundation Wiki 0
  • MyNation.net Equality, Justice and Harmony 0
  • Sarvepalli Legal 0
  • Save Indian Family Save Indian Family Movement 0
  • SIF Chandigarh SIF Chandigarh 0
  • The Male Factor The Male Factor 0
  • Vaastav Foundation The Social Reality 0
  • Voice4india Indian Laws, Non-profits, Environment 0
  • Writing Law Writing Law by Ankur 0

RSS Cloudflare Status

  • RUH (Riyadh) on 2023-08-23 August 23, 2023
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Aug 23, 15:30 - 23:00 UTCMay 22, 21:40 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in RUH (Riyadh) datacenter on 2023-08-23 between 15:30 and 23:00 UTC. Traffic might be re-routed from this location, hence there is a possibility of a slight increase in latency during this maintenance window for […]
  • RUH (Riyadh) on 2023-08-22 August 22, 2023
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Aug 22, 15:30 - 23:00 UTCMay 22, 21:40 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in RUH (Riyadh) datacenter on 2023-08-22 between 15:30 and 23:00 UTC. Traffic might be re-routed from this location, hence there is a possibility of a slight increase in latency during this maintenance window for […]
  • RUH (Riyadh) on 2023-08-16 August 16, 2023
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Aug 16, 15:30 - 23:00 UTCMay 22, 21:40 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in RUH (Riyadh) datacenter on 2023-08-16 between 15:30 and 23:00 UTC. Traffic might be re-routed from this location, hence there is a possibility of a slight increase in latency during this maintenance window for […]

RSS List of Spam Server IPs from Project Honeypot

  • 94.131.119.144 | SDW May 28, 2023
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 2,891 | First: 2023-05-03 | Last: 2023-05-28
  • 103.18.101.133 | SD May 28, 2023
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 265 | First: 2023-03-21 | Last: 2023-05-28
  • 192.142.133.12 | S May 28, 2023
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 8,035 | First: 2023-02-27 | Last: 2023-05-28
Proudly powered by WordPress
Theme: Flint by Star Verte LLC

Bad Behavior has blocked 4375 access attempts in the last 7 days.

pixel