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: Illegally Obtained Evidence Admissible As Long As Relevant to Case

Anjali Sharma Vs Raman Upadhyay on 16 Jun 2025

Posted on June 25 by ShadesOfKnife

A single Judge of Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior Bench held that one fundamental right under Constitution must yield to another and, the right to fair trial must yield to right to privacy.

From Paras 11 and 12,

11. In order to achieve its object to simplify the rules of evidence and procedure, Section 14 of the Family Courts Act provides for an exception to the general rule of evidence regarding admissibility of any report, statements, documents, information or matter, which it considers necessary to assist it and to deal with it effectively. Apparently, such a provision is made keeping in view the nature of cases which are dealt with by the Family Courts. Needless to mention here that Section 14 of Family Courts Act is a special legislation and by virtue of this provision, the strict principles of admissibility of evidence as provided under the Evidence Act have been relaxed.
12. A cumulative reading of Section 14 & 20 of the Family Courts Act, takes within its ambit the restricted applications of the provisions of the Evidence Act qua the documentary evidence which includes electronic evidence, whether or not the same is otherwise admissible. The only guiding factor is that the Family Court should be of the opinion that such evidence would assist the Court to deal with the matrimonial dispute effectively. It is the absolute power and authority of the Family Court either to accept or discard particular evidence in finally adjudicating the matrimonial dispute. However, to say that a party would be precluded from placing such documents on record and/or such documents can be refused to be exhibited unless they are proved as per Evidence Act, runs contrary to the object of Section 14 of the Family Courts Act.

From Paras 18 and 19, (No fundamental right under our Constitution is absolute)

18. By reading the dictum of Apex Court in the case of Sharda & Puttaswami (supra), it is evident that right to privacy is recognized as a fundamental right under Article 21 of Constitution, but the same is not an absolute right. In case of necessity, a law can be framed permitting invasion to life and personal liberty. Section 14 of Family Courts Act and Section 122 of Indian Evidence Act are some such statutory provisions which permits invasion to right to privacy. It is worth mentioning here that vires of either of the aforesaid provisions are not under challenge and, therefore, the same have to be deemed as valid, fair and reasonable.
19. Since no fundamental right under our Constitution is absolute, in the event of conflict between two fundamental rights, as in this case, a contest between the right to privacy and the right to fair trial, both of which arise under Article 21 of our Constitution, the right to privacy may have to yield to the right to fair trial. Reference in this regard can be made to the observations of a 5-Judge Constitution Bench decision of Apex Court in Sahara India Real Estate Corporation Limited Vs. Securities and Exchange Board of India reported in (2012)10 SCC 603

From Paras 20 and 21,

20. Reading the law laid down by Apex Court in the case of Sharda, Puttaswamy & Sahara India (supra), it comes out loud and clear that even though right to privacy has been recognized as a fundamental right, the same is not absolute and is subject to exceptions and limitations. While a litigating party certainly has a right to privacy, that right must yield to the right of an opposing party to bring evidence it considers relevant to court, to prove its case. It is a settled concept of fair trial that a litigating party gets a fair chance to bring relevant evidence before court. It is important to appreciate that while the right to privacy is essentially a personal right, the right to fair trial has wider ramifications and impacts public justice, which is a larger cause. The cause of public justice would suffer if the opportunity of fair trial is denied by shutting-out evidence that a litigating party may wish to lead, at the very threshold. Saying otherwise, would negate the specific statutory provision contained in Section 14 of Family Courts Act, which says that evidence would be admissible, whether or not the same is otherwise admissible under Evidence Act.
21. If it were to be held that evidence sought to be adduced before a Family Court should be excluded based on an objection of breach of privacy right then the provisions of Section 14 would be rendered nugatory and dead-letter. It is to be borne in mind that Family Courts have been established to deal with matters that are essentially sensitive, personal disputes relating to dissolution of marriage, restitution of conjugal rights, legitimacy of children, guardianship, custody, and access to minors; which matters, by the very nature of the relationship from which they arise, involve issues that are private, personal and involve intimacies. It is easily foreseeable therefore, that in most cases that come before the Family Court, the evidence sought to be marshaled would relate to the private affairs of the litigating parties. If Section 14 is held not to apply in its full expanse to evidence that impinges on a person’s right to privacy, then not only of Section 14 but the very object of constitution of Family Courts shall be frustrated. Therefore, the test of admissibility would only be the relevance. Accordingly, fundamental considerations of fair trial and public justice would warrant that evidence be received if it is relevant, regardless of how it is collected. The purpose of legislating Section 14 would be frustrated if it is to give way to right of privacy.

From Para 35,

35. In view of the discussion made above, this court is of the opinion that the Legislature, being fully aware of the principals of admissibility of evidence, has enacted Section 14 in order to expand that principle in so far as disputes relating to marriage and family affairs are concerned. The Family Court is thereby freed of restrictions of the strict law of evidence. The only test under Section 14 for a Family Court to receive the evidence, whether collected legitimately or otherwise, is based upon its subjective satisfaction that the evidence would assist it to deal effectually with the dispute.

From Para 38,

38. In view of the discussion made above, it is held that:
(a) the evidence is admissible so long as it is relevant, irrespective of the fact how it is collected. The possible misuse of this rule of evidence, particularly in the context of the right to privacy, can be addressed by prudent exercise of judicial discretion by the Family Court, not at the time of receiving evidence but at the time of using evidence at the stage of adjudication;
(b) merely admitting evidence on record is not proof of a fact-in-issue or a relevant fact. Admitting evidence is not even reliance by the court on such evidence. Admitting evidence is mere inclusion of evidence in record, to be assessed on a comprehensive set of factors, parameters and aspects, in the
discretion of the court;
(c) the test of ‘relevance’ ensures that the right of a party to bring evidence to court, and thereby to a fair trial, is not defeated. What weight is to be given to evidence so brought-in, and whether or not the court ultimately relies upon such evidence for proof of a fact-in-issue or a relevant fact, is always in the discretion of the court.
(d) merely because a court allows evidence to be admitted, does not mean that the person who has illegally collected such evidence is absolved of liability that may arise, whether in civil or criminal law or both;
(e) such evidence must be received and treated with caution and circumspection and to rule-out the possibility of any kind of tampering, the standard of proof applied by a court for the authenticity and accuracy of a such evidence should be more stringent as compared to other evidence;

Anjali Sharma Vs Raman Upadhyay on 16 Jun 2025

Index of Divorce Judgments is here.

Posted in High Court of Madhya Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision Anjali Sharma Vs Raman Upadhyay BSA Sec 128 - Communications during marriage Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to Disagrees with Views of Other High Court Family Courts Act Sec 14 - Application of Indian Evidence Act 1872 Family Courts Act Sec 20 - Act to have overriding effect Illegally Obtained Evidence Admissible As Long As Relevant to Case | Leave a comment

Madhuranatha and Anr Vs State of Karnataka on 28 Nov 2013

Posted on May 10, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

The Division bench of Apex Court reduced Death penalty to Life imprisonment for 30 years without remission.

From Para 11,

11. Thus, a witness is normally considered to be independent unless he springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and this usually means that the said witness has cause to bear such enmity against the accused so as to implicate him falsely. In view of the above, there can be no prohibition to the effect that a policeman cannot be a witness or that his deposition cannot be relied upon if it inspires confidence.

Madhuranatha and Anr Vs State of Karnataka on 28 Nov 2013

Citations : [2013 AD SC 12 587], [2014 AIR SC 394], [2014 AJR 3 489], [2014 AKR 1 305], [2014 ALD CRL SC 1 699], [2014 ALLCC 84 329], [2013 JT SC 15 58], [2014 KARLJ 2 158], [2014 KCCR 2 985], [2014 NCC 1 346], [2013 SCALE 14 502], [2014 SCC 12 419], [2014 SCC CRI 6 765], [2013 SCC ONLINE SC 1048], [2014 AIC 133 87], [2014 ECRN 1 668], [2013 SUPREME 8 279], [2013 AIOL 784], [2013 CRIMES SC 4 571], [2013 AIR SC 6766], [2013 AIR SCW 6766], [2014 JCC SC 1 809], [2014 RCR CRIMINAL SC 1 203]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/176649597/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af33e4b0149711415ccf

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to Evidence Act 138 - Right to cross-examination a witness tendered in evidence by opposite party Evidence Act 146 - Questions lawful in cross-examination Illegally Obtained Evidence Admissible As Long As Relevant to Case Inquest report is not a piece of substantive evidence Landmark Case Madhuranatha and Anr Vs State of Karnataka Reportable Judgement or Order | Leave a comment

Dharambir Khattar Vs UOI on 21 November, 2012

Posted on December 20, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Based on the Hon’ble Apex Court’s landmark judgment here, Hon’ble Delhi High Court also ruled that “Therefore, without going into the issue of whether there was non-compliance of the provisions of Section 5(2) or of Rule 419-A, it is clear that even if there was, in fact, no compliance, the evidence gathered thereupon would still be admissible. This is the clear position settled by the Supreme Court and, therefore, no further question of law arises on this aspect of the matter.“.

Dharambir Khattar Vs UOI on 21 November, 2012

[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”]

Posted in High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Dharambir Khattar Vs UOI Illegally Obtained Evidence Admissible As Long As Relevant to Case | Leave a comment

Mathai Vs State of Kerala on 25 May, 2015

Posted on December 20, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Hon’ble High Court of Kerala has held that “there is no legal evidence on record to show that it was his house, which was searched. The trial Court failed to appreciate that legal position, while convicting the appellants, which needs interference.”

Mathai Vs State of Kerala on 25 May, 2015

[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”]

Posted in High Court of Kerala Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Illegally Obtained Evidence Admissible As Long As Relevant to Case Mathai Vs State of Kerala | Leave a comment

Pooran Mal Etc Vs Director Of Inspection on 14 December, 1973

Posted on December 20, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Another judgment from Hon’ble Supreme Court clearly lays out that “Courts in India and in England have consistently refused to exclude relevant evidence merely on the ground that it is obtained by illegal search or seizure. Where the test of admissibility of evidence lies in relevancy, unless there is an express or implied prohibition in the Constitution or other law, evidence obtained as a result of illegal search or seizure is not liable to be shut out.”

Pooran Mal Etc Vs Director Of Inspection on 14 December, 1973

Citations : [1974 ITR SC 93 505], [1974 AIR SC 348], [1974 SCC 1 345], [1974 SCR 2 704], [1974 SCC TAX 114], [1974 ITJ 1 406], [1974 CTR 25], [1974 ITR 93 505]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/558753/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ab91e4b014971140cc8a

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 5-Judge Constitutional Bench Decision Illegally Obtained Evidence Admissible As Long As Relevant to Case Pooran Mal Etc Vs Director Of Inspection Sandeep Pamarati | Leave a comment

R.M.Malkani Vs State Of Maharashtra on 22 September, 1972

Posted on December 20, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

A landmark case wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court held that, “There is warrant for proposition that even if, evidence is illegally obtained it is admissible. Over a century ago it was said in an English case where a constable searched the appellant illegally and found a quantity of offending article in his pocket that it would be a dangerous obstacle to the administration of justice if it were held, because evidence was obtained by illegal means, it could not be used against a party charged with an offence. See Jones v. Owen“.

Facts of Case:

R.M.Malkani was at the crucial time the Coroner of Bombay. The evidence is that the patient died on 13 May, 1964. Dr. Motwani saw the appellant on 3 October, 1964. The appellant demanded Rs. 20,000. The appellant asked for payment of Rs. 20,000 in order that Dr. Adatia would avoid inconvenience and publicity in newspapers in case inquest was held. Dr. Motwani informed Dr. Adatia about the conversation with the appellant. On 4 October, 1964 the appellant rang up Dr. Motwani and said that he was willing to reduce the amount to Rs. 10,000. On 5 October, 1964 Dr. Adatia received calls from the appellant asking him to attend the Coroner’s Court on 6 October, 1964. Dr. Adatia got in touch with Dr. Motwani on 6 October and gave him that message. Dr. Adatia rang up the appellant on 6 October and asked for adjournment. The appellant granted the adjournment to 7 October. On 6 October there were two calls from the appellant asking Dr. Adatia to attend the Coroner’s Court on 7 October and also that Dr. Adatia should contact the appellant on 6 October. Dr. Motwani rang up the appellant and told him that the telephonic conversation had upset Dr. Adatia. On 6 October Dr. Motwani conveyed to Mugwe, Director of Intelligence Bureau about the demand of bribe to the appellant.

Punch Line:

There is no violation of section 25 of the Telegraph Act in the facts and circumstances of the present case. There is warrant for proposition that even if, evidence is illegally obtained it is admissible. Over a century ago it was said in an English case where a constable searched the appellant illegally and found a quantity of offending article in his pocket that it would be a dangerous obstacle to the administration of justice if it were held, because evidence was obtained by illegal means, it could not be used against a party charged with an offence. See Jones v. Owen.

The Court will take care in two directions in admitting such evidence. First, the Court will find out that it is genuine and free from tampering or mutilation. Secondly, the Court may also secures scrupulous conduct and behaviour on behalf of the Police. The reason is that the Police Officer is more likely to behave properly if improperly obtained evidence is liable to be viewed with care and caution by the Judge. In every case the position of the accused, the nature of the investigation and the gravity of the offence must be judged in the light of the material facts and the Surrounding circumstances.

When a Court permits a tape recording to be played over it is acting on real evidence if it treats the intonation of the words to be relevant and genuine. The fact that tape recorded conversation can be altered is also borne in mind by the Court while admitting it in evidence.

R.M.Malkani Vs State of Maharashtra on 22 Sep 1972

Citations : [1973 AIR SC 157], [1973 MHLJ 92], [1973 MPLJ SC 224], [1973 SCC 1 471], [1973 SCC CRI 399], [1973 SCR 2 417], [1973 KHC 0 469], [1973 CAR 31], [1973 CRLJ SC 228]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1179783/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ab7fe4b014971140ca8e

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Illegally Obtained Evidence Admissible As Long As Relevant to Case Indian Telegraph Act Sec 25 Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes R.M.Malkani Vs State Of Maharashtra Sandeep Pamarati | Leave a comment

Search within entire Content of “Shades of Knife”

My Legal X Timeline

Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Follow

AP High Court Advocate with M Tech (CS) || 12 years in 'Software Industry' as Solution Architect || Blogs at https://t.co/29CB9BzK4w || #TDPTwitter

SandeepPamarati
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
total_woke_ Eminent Intellectual @total_woke_ ·
11 Jul

They are clear, are you? #UdaipurFiles

Reply on Twitter 1943537282763436044 Retweet on Twitter 1943537282763436044 5467 Like on Twitter 1943537282763436044 19737 X 1943537282763436044
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
jaitdp Telugu Desam Party @jaitdp ·
12 Jul

గుర్తు తెలియని మహిళ నుంచి, వచ్చిన ఒక చిన్న ఈమెయిల్.. ముఖ్యమంత్రి నుంచి కలెక్టర్, ఎస్పీ వరకు నిమిషాల్లో స్పందించారు.. 48 గంటల్లో న్యాయం చేసారు..

ఆంధ్రప్రదేశ్ రాష్ట్రంలో, ప్రతి క్షణం, ప్రతి నిమిషం, ప్రతి గంటా, ఆడ బిడ్డలకు రక్షణగా నిలుస్తుంది కూటమి ప్రభుత్వం. మహిళలకు ఏ సమస్య…

Reply on Twitter 1943932707320582460 Retweet on Twitter 1943932707320582460 108 Like on Twitter 1943932707320582460 387 X 1943932707320582460
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
theskindoctor13 THE SKIN DOCTOR @theskindoctor13 ·
12 Jul

Man vs Wild : Bear Grylls’ daring expedition through the New Delhi Oceanic Trench.

Reply on Twitter 1944085109592010940 Retweet on Twitter 1944085109592010940 364 Like on Twitter 1944085109592010940 2181 X 1944085109592010940
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
renuka_jetti RENUKA.JETTI.LL.B. @renuka_jetti ·
12 Jul

విద్యుత్ బిల్లులపై సీఎం చంద్రబాబు సంచలన నిర్ణయం.. #ChandrababuNaidu #TDP #KutamiGovt
#IdhiManchiPrabhutvam
#HOPEJETTI

Reply on Twitter 1943829459326709851 Retweet on Twitter 1943829459326709851 25 Like on Twitter 1943829459326709851 117 X 1943829459326709851
Load More

Recent Posts

  • Dowry Prohibition Officers of Andhra Pradesh working? July 13, 2025
  • Cases where Perjury Proceedings were initiated July 3, 2025
  • Dara Lakshmi Narayana and 6 Ors Vs State of Telangana and Anr on 10 Dec 2024 June 27, 2025
  • Mohammad Wajid and Anr Vs State of U.P. and Ors on 08 Aug 2023 June 26, 2025
  • Ajay Rajendra Khare and Ors Vs State of Maharashtra on 10 Jun 2025 June 26, 2025

Most Read Posts

  • Vishal Shah Vs Monalisha Gupta and Ors on 20 Feb 2025 (2,996 views)
  • Mudireddy Divya Vs Sulkti Sivarama Reddy on 26 Mar 2025 (2,432 views)
  • Sukhdev Singh Vs Sukhbir Kaur on 12 Feb 2025 (2,331 views)
  • Madan Kumar Satpathy Vs Priyadarshini Pati on 07 Feb 2025 (1,793 views)
  • Megha Khetrapal Vs Rajat Kapoor on 19 Mar 2025 (1,668 views)
  • Om Prakash Ambadkar Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors on 16 Jan 2025 (1,386 views)
  • Ivan Rathinam Vs Milan Joseph on 28 Jan 2025 (1,166 views)
  • Saikat Das Vs State of West Bengal and Anr on 27 Mar 2025 (1,017 views)
  • Akkala Rami Reddy Vs State of AP and Anr on 30 Apr 2025 (955 views)
  • Roopa Soni Vs Kamal Narayan Soni on 06 Sep 2023 (839 views)

Tags

Reportable Judgement or Order (405)2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision (375)Landmark Case (369)Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes (367)1-Judge Bench Decision (294)Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to (274)Work-In-Progress Article (216)3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision (97)Sandeep Pamarati (93)Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty (77)Issued or Recommended Guidelines or Directions or Protocols to be followed (68)Perjury Under 340 CrPC (60)Absurd Or After Thought Or Baseless Or False Or General Or Inherently Improbable Or Improved Or UnSpecific Or Omnibus Or Vague Allegations (58)Reprimands or Setbacks to YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh (49)Summary Post (44)HM Act 13 - Divorce Granted to Husband (42)Legal Terrorism (41)Not Authentic copy hence to be replaced (40)CrPC 482 - Quash (39)Divorce granted on Cruelty ground (39)

Categories

Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification (718)Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments (319)High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (179)High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification (141)High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification (107)High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification (86)High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification (66)General Study Material (55)Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications (50)High Court of Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification (50)High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification (50)Prakasam DV Cases (46)LLB Study Material (46)District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification (43)Judicial Activism (for Public Benefit) (43)High Court of Kerala Judgment or Order or Notification (39)High Court of Madhya Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (36)High Court of Gujarat Judgment or Order or Notification (28)High Court of Telangana Judgment or Order or Notification (26)High Court of Calcutta Judgment or Order or Notification (23)

Recent Comments

  • Risha Bhatnagar on Pitchika Lakshmi Vs Pichika Chenna Mallikaharjuana Rao on 24 Dec 2012
  • ShadesOfKnife on Index of all Summary Case Law Pages on Shades of Knife
  • kanwal Kishore Girdhar on Index of all Summary Case Law Pages on Shades of Knife
  • SUBHASH KUMAR BANSAL on Sukhdev Singh Vs Sukhbir Kaur on 12 Feb 2025
  • ShadesOfKnife on Syed Nazim Husain Vs Additional Principal Judge Family Court & Anr on 9 January, 2003

Archives of SoK

  • July 2025 (2)
  • June 2025 (15)
  • May 2025 (3)
  • April 2025 (10)
  • March 2025 (7)
  • February 2025 (8)
  • January 2025 (1)
  • December 2024 (3)
  • November 2024 (4)
  • October 2024 (16)
  • September 2024 (15)
  • August 2024 (14)
  • July 2024 (11)
  • June 2024 (18)
  • May 2024 (13)
  • April 2024 (9)
  • March 2024 (23)
  • February 2024 (15)
  • January 2024 (11)
  • December 2023 (11)
  • November 2023 (9)
  • October 2023 (13)
  • September 2023 (12)
  • August 2023 (15)
  • July 2023 (17)
  • June 2023 (11)
  • May 2023 (6)
  • 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 (28)
  • 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 (57)
  • August 2019 (33)
  • July 2019 (12)
  • June 2019 (18)
  • 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 (97)
  • 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
  • Unitedmen Foundation a dedicated community forged with the mission to unite men facing legal challenges in marital disputes. 0
  • Vaastav Foundation The Social Reality 0
  • Vinayak my2centsworth – This blog is for honest law abiding men, married or planning to get married 0
  • Voice4india Indian Laws, Non-profits, Environment 0
  • Writing Law Writing Law by Ankur 0

RSS Cloudflare Status

  • BCN (Barcelona) on 2025-07-22 July 22, 2025
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Jul 22, 01:00 - 04:00 UTCJul 10, 15:00 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in BCN (Barcelona) datacenter on 2025-07-22 between 01:00 and 04:00 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 end-users […]
  • CGK (Jakarta) on 2025-07-16 July 16, 2025
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Jul 16, 19:00 - 23:00 UTCJul 3, 06:02 UTCUpdate - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in CGK (Jakarta) datacenter on 2025-07-16 between 19:00 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 end-users […]
  • IAD (Ashburn) on 2025-07-16 July 16, 2025
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Jul 16, 05:00 - 10:00 UTCJul 12, 04:32 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in IAD (Ashburn) datacenter on 2025-07-16 between 05:00 and 10:00 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 end-users […]

RSS List of Spam Server IPs from Project Honeypot

  • 189.126.130.71 | SD July 13, 2025
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 48 | First: 2014-01-13 | Last: 2025-07-13
  • 45.232.176.220 | S July 13, 2025
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 4 | First: 2025-06-26 | Last: 2025-07-13
  • 45.65.213.1 | SD July 13, 2025
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 31 | First: 2017-06-08 | Last: 2025-07-13
Owned and Operated by Advocate Sandeep Pamarati
Proudly powered by WordPress
Theme: Flint by Star Verte LLC

Bad Behavior has blocked 1905 access attempts in the last 7 days.

pixel