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: Landmark Case

V.D. Bhanot Vs Savita Bhanot on 07 February 2012

Posted on May 15, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court In this case, upheld the view taken by the Delhi High Court that the conduct of the parties even prior to the coming into force of the Domestic Violence Act, could be taken into consideration while passing an order under Sections 18, 19 and 20 thereof. Even if a wife, who had shared a household in the past, but was no longer doing so when the Act came into force, would still be entitled to the protection of the Act.

V.D. Bhanot Vs Savita Bhanot on 07 February 2012

Two more Orders after the above one were passed.

V.D. Bhanot Vs Savita Bhanot on 04 April 2012

Order u/s 19

V.D. Bhanot Vs Savita Bhanot on 07 February 2013

Citations: []

Other Source links:


The index page is here.

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Landmark Case PWDV Act Sec 19 - Residential Order (Rent) Granted Reportable Judgement or Order V.D. Bhanot Vs Savita Bhanot Work-In-Progress Article | Leave a comment

Sandhya Manoj Wankhade Vs Manoj Bhimrao Wankhade and Ors on 31 January 2011

Posted on May 15, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court held that Women can also be made respondents in a DV case.

From Paras 12, 13 and 14,

12. From the above definition it would be apparent that although Section 2(q) defines a respondent to mean any adult male person, who is or has been in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person, the proviso widens the scope of the said definition by including a relative of the husband or male partner within the scope of a complaint, which may be filed by an aggrieved wife or a female living in a relationship in the nature of a marriage.
13. It is true that the expression “female” has not been used in the proviso to Section 2(q) also, but, on the other hand, if the Legislature intended to
exclude females from the ambit of the complaint, which can be filed by an aggrieved wife, females would have been specifically excluded, instead of
it being provided in the proviso that a complaint could also be filed against a relative of the husband or the male partner. No restrictive meaning has been given to the expression “relative”, nor has the said expression been specifically defined in the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, to make it specific to males only.
14. In such circumstances, it is clear that the legislature never intended to exclude female relatives of the husband or male partner from the ambit of a complaint that can be made under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

Sandhya Manoj Wankhade Vs Manoj Bhimrao Wankhade and Ors on 31 January 2011

Citations: []

Other Source links:


After more than 5 long years, Supreme Court has struck down two words “Adult male” from Sec 2(q) of PWDV Act 2005 here.


The index page is 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 Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes PWDV Act Sec 2(q) – Women Can Be Respondents In PWDV Case Reportable Judgement or Order Sandhya Manoj Wankhade Vs Manoj Bhimrao Wankhade and Ors Work-In-Progress Article | Leave a comment

D. Velusamy Vs D. Patchaiammal on 21 October 2010

Posted on May 15, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Justice Katju held as follows:

33. In our opinion a ‘relationship in the nature of marriage’ is akin to a common law marriage. Common law marriages require that although not
being formally married :-
(a) The couple must hold themselves out to society as being akin to spouses.
(b) They must be of legal age to marry.
(c) They must be otherwise qualified to enter into a legal marriage, including being unmarried.
(d) They must have voluntarily cohabited and held themselves out to the world as being akin to spouses for a significant period of time.

In our opinion a ‘relationship in the nature of marriage’ under the 2005 Act must also fulfill the above requirements, and in addition the parties
must have lived together in a ‘shared household’ as defined in Section 2(s) of the Act. Merely spending weekends together or a one night stand would not make it a ‘domestic relationship’.

D. Velusamy Vs D. Patchaiammal on 21 October 2010

Citations: []

Other Source links:

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to D. Velusamy Vs D. Patchaiammal In the Nature of Marriage Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes PWDV Act Sec 2(f) - Domestic Relationship Reportable Judgement or Order Work-In-Progress Article | Leave a comment

New India Assurance Co Ltd Vs Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt Ltd on 4 March 2020

Posted on May 10, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Justice Vineet Saran sitting in a 5-Judge bench delivered this reference judgment on the following two questions of law.

Question-1

Whether the District Forum has power to extend the time for filing of response to the complaint beyond the period of 15 days, in addition to 30 days, as envisaged under Section 13(2)(a) of the Consumer Protection Act?

Answered as follows:

To conclude, we hold that our answer to the first question is that the District Forum has no power to extend the time for filing the  response to the complaint beyond the period of 15 days in addition to 30 days as is envisaged under Section 13 of the Consumer  Protection Act

Question-2

What would be the commencing point of limitation of 30 days under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986?

Answered as follows:

the answer to the second question is that the commencing point of limitation of 30 days under Section 13 of the Consumer Protection Act would be from the date of receipt of the notice accompanied with the complaint by the opposite party, and not mere receipt of the notice of the complaint.

New India Assurance Co Ltd Vs Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt Ltd on 4 March 2020

Citations: [AIR 2020 SC 1267], [2020 SCC OnLine SC 287]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/96395504/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5e69d2383321bc624fea2d34

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 5-Judge Constitutional Bench Decision CP Act 13(2) - Commencement of the Period of Limitation Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Mandatory or Directory New India Assurance Co Ltd Vs Hilli Multipurpose Cold Storage Pvt Ltd Reportable Judgement or Order Sandeep Pamarati Work-In-Progress Article | 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

Dheeraj Mor Vs High Court of Delhi on 19 February 2020

Posted on April 20, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court held that, without eligibility for the post of District Judge, petitioners (who are subordinate judiciary) cannot claim stake for the post/continue in the post reserved for Advocates (25%) and hence they have to be reverted to their earlier posts.

From Para 48,

48. In the case of Dheeraj Mor and others cases, time to time interim orders have been passed by this Court, and incumbents in judicial service were permitted to appear in the examination. Though later on, this Court vacated the said interim orders, by that time certain appointments had been  made in some of the States and in some of the States results have been withheld by the High Court owing to complication which has arisen due to participation of the ineligible in-service candidates as against the post reserved for the practising advocates. In the cases where such in-service incumbents have been appointed by way of direct recruitment from bar as we find no merit in the petitions and due to dismissal of the writ petitions  filed by the judicial officers, as sequel no fruits can be ripened on the basis of selection without eligibility, they cannot continue as District Judges. They have to be reverted to their original post. In case their right in channel for promotion had already been ripened, and their juniors have been  promoted, the High Court has to consider their promotion in accordance with prevailing rules. However, they cannot claim any right on the basis of such an appointment obtained under interim order, which was subject to the outcome of the writ petition and they have to be reverted.

Dheeraj Mor Vs High Court of Delhi on 19 February 2020

Citations: [2020 SCC OnLine SC 213]

Other Source links:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/10432983/ or
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5e52c0a93321bc1e173f86fc or
https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/dheeraj-mor-versus-hon%E2%80%99ble-high-court-of-delhi or
https://www.livelaw.in/top-stories/practising-advocates-experience-gained-at-bar-injects-judicial-branch-with-fresh-perspectives-sc-152952 or
https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2020/02/19/members-of-subordinate-judiciary-cant-claim-direct-recruitment-to-the-district-judge-post-under-quota-meant-for-practicing-advocates/ or
https://www.barandbench.com/news/breaking-judicial-officers-cant-be-considered-for-direct-recruitment-as-district-judges-under-quota-for-bar-sc

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision Article 233 - Appointment of district judges Article 234 - Recruitment of persons other than district judges to the judicial service Article 309 - Recruitment and conditions of service of persons serving the Union or a State Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to Dheeraj Mor Vs High Court of Delhi Judiciary Antics Landmark Case Referred to Large Bench Reportable Judgement or Order | Leave a comment

Mangayarkarasi Vs M Yuvraj on 03 March 2020

Posted on April 19, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court said that, acquittal from a false criminal case…

From Para 15,

15. It cannot be in doubt that in an appropriate case the unsubstantiated allegation of dowry demand or such other allegation has been made and  the husband and his family members are exposed to criminal litigation and ultimately if it is found that such allegation is unwarranted and without  basis and if that act of the wife itself forms the basis for the husband to allege that mental cruelty has been inflicted on him, certainly, in such  circumstance if a petition for dissolution of marriage is filed on that ground and evidence is tendered before the original court to allege mental cruelty it could well be appreciated for the purpose of dissolving the marriage on that ground.

Mangayakarasi Vs M Yuvraj on 03 March 2020

Citations: [

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/39962638/


Index of Divorce Judgments here.

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision Baseless charges Against Spouse is Cruelty Filing False Criminal Complaints causes Mental Cruelty Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Mangayarkarasi Vs M Yuvraj Reportable Judgement or Order | Leave a comment

Kehar Singh and Anr Vs Union of India and Anr on 16 December 1988

Posted on April 15, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

This is the Writ Petition filed by one Kehar Singh who was accused and convicted for the consipracy and murder of Indira Gandhi on the following questions.

1. Whether there is justification for the view that when exercising his powers under Art. 72 the President is precluded from entering into the merits of a case decided finally by this Court.

2. To what areas does the power to scrutinise extend?

3. Whether judicial review extends to an examination of the order passed by the President under Art. 72 of the Constitution.

4. Whether the petitioner is entitled to an oral hearing from the President on his petition invoking the powers under Article 72.

Supreme Courts answers as,

We are of the view that it is open to the President in the exercise of the power vested in him by Art. 72 of the Constitution to scrutinise the evidence on the record of the criminal case and come to a different conclusion from that recorded by the court in regard to the guilt of, and sentence imposed on, the accused. In doing so, the President does not amend or modify or supersede the judicial record. The judicial record remains intact, and  undisturbed. The president acts in a wholly different plane from that in which the Court acted. He acts under a constitutional power, the nature of which is entirely different from the judicial power and cannot be regarded as an extension of it. And this is so, notwithstanding that the practical effect of the Presidential act is to remove the stigma of guilt from the accused or to remit the sentence imposed on him.

and…

It is apparent that the power under Art. 72 entitles the President to examine the record of evidence of the criminal case and to determine for himself whether the case is one deserving the grant of the relief falling within that power. We are of opinion that the President is entitled to go into the merits of the case notwithstanding that it has been judicially concluded by the consideration given to it by this Court.

Kehar Singh and Anr Vs Union of India and Anr on 16 December 1988

Citations: [1988 SUPP SCR 3 1102], [1989 SCC 1 204], [1989 SCALE 1 242], [1988 SCR SUPL 3 1102], [1989 MPJR SC 10], [1989 CRLJ SC 941], [1989 CRILJ 941], [1988 SCALE 2 1565], [1988 SCR SUPP 3 1102], [1989 AIR SC 653], [1989 CRIMES SC 1 238], [1989 PLJR 23], [1989 SCC CRI 86], [1988 JT 4 693]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1152284/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609aac9e4b014971140afa4


Disclaimer:

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

I have no control to remove copies of this document(s) that may be available on websites of High Courts or Supreme Court of India or any of the many other sites, law journal or reporters which carry the same judgment in it’s entirety, not I can remove references/links to this document(s) from the results of Search Engines such as Google.com.

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 5-Judge Constitutional Bench Decision Article 72 of The Constitution of India Indira Gandhi Murder Case Kehar Singh and Anr Vs Union of India and Anr Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Operation Blue Star Reportable Judgement or Order Sensational Or Peculiar Cases | Leave a comment

Badshah Vs Urmila Badshah Godse and Anr on 18 October 2013

Posted on April 9, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Justice A.K.Sikri in a 2-judge bench had held that, for the purpose of claiming maintenance under Section 125, Cr.P.C., such a woman (who is not a legally wedded wife), is to be treated as the legally wedded wife.

From Para 25,

25. Thus, while interpreting a statute the court may not only take into consideration the purpose for which the statute was enacted, but also the mischief it seeks to suppress. It is this mischief rule, first propounded in Heydon’s Case[11] which became the historical source of purposive interpretation. The court would also invoke the legal maxim construction ut res magis valeat guam pereat, in such cases i.e. where alternative constructions are possible the Court must give effect to that which will be responsible for the smooth working of the system for which the statute has been enacted rather than one which will put a road block in its way. If the choice is between two interpretations, the narrower of which would fail to achieve the manifest purpose of the legislation should be avoided. We should avoid a construction which would reduce the legislation to futility and should accept the bolder construction based on the view that Parliament would legislate only for the purpose of bringing about an effective result. If this interpretation is not accepted, it would amount to giving a premium to the husband for defrauding the wife. Therefore, at least for the purpose of claiming maintenance under Section 125, Cr.P.C., such a woman is to be treated as the legally wedded wife.

Badshah Vs Urmila Badshah Godse and Anr on 18 October 2013

Citations: [2014 SCJ 2 779], [2014 CRILJ 1076], [2014 SCC 1 188], [2013 SCALE 12 681], [2014 CRLJ SC 1076], [2013 RCR CRIMINAL SC 4 764], [2013 CTC 6 86], [2014 AIR SC 256], [2014 NCC 1 238], [2013 RLW SC 4 3670], [2013 AIOL 3407], [2013 AD SC 11 9], [2013 RCR CIVIL SC 4 830], [2013 SCC ONLINE SC 946], [2014 JLJR SC 1 78], [2014 LW CRL 1 646], [2014 SCC CIV 1 51], [2013 JCC SC 4 2765], [2014 LW 2 936], [2013 ACR 3 3010], [2014 MPHT 2 499], [2014 GLH 1 273], [2013 KERLT 4 367], [2013 ALR 101 704], [2013 BOMCR CRI SC 4 616], [2013 SLT 9 543], [2013 DMC 3 518], [2014 ECRN 1 241], [2014 AIR SC 869], [2013 JT 13 570], [2013 AIC 132 108]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/15901386/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af37e4b0149711415daf


Earlier Chanmuniya judgment is here.


 

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Badshah Vs Urmila Badshah Godse and Anr Chanmuniya Vs Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha and Anr CrPC 125 or BNSS 144 - No Strict Proof of Marriage Required CrPC 125 or BNSS 144 - Women In Live-In Relationships Entitled To Maintenance Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Reportable Judgement or Order | Leave a comment

Syed Wasif Husain Rizvi Vs Hasan Raza Khan and Ors on 22 January 2016

Posted on April 3, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

3-Judge Full Bench comprising Chief Justice DY Chandrachud (as he was at Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court) declared the following reference in affirmative,

“Whether writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution can be filed by Power of Attorney holder?”

Safeguards

Having held so, we must, at the same time, emphasize the necessity of observing adequate safeguards where a writ petition is filed through the holder of a power of attorney. These safeguards should necessarily include the following:
(1) The power of attorney by which the donor authorises the donee, must be brought on the record and must be filed together with the petition/application;
(2) The affidavit which is executed by the holder of a power of attorney must contain a statement that the donor is alive and specify the reasons for the inability of the donor to remain present before the Court to swear the affidavit; and
(3) The donee must be confined to those acts which he is authorised by the power of attorney to discharge.

Syed Wasif Husain Rizvi Vs Hasan Raza Khan and Ors on 22 January 2016

Earlier Reference Order

Syed Wasif Husain Rizvi Vs Hasan Raza Khan and Ors on 02 December 2015

Citations: [2016 AWC 2 1525], [2016 LCD 34 373], [2016 AIR ALL 52]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/114640689/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5811a4a5e691cb26fc4d9447


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 High Court of Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Power of Attorney Reportable Judgement or Order Syed Wasif Husain Rizvi Vs Hasan Raza Khan and Ors | Leave a comment

Post navigation

  • Older posts
  • Newer posts

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
exsecular

exsecular

Verified account @exsecular ·
24 Oct

Aaj ka gyan ..

Reply on Twitter 2113863679263580543 Retweet on Twitter 2113863679263580543 27 Like on Twitter 2113863679263580543 108 X 2113863679263580543
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
mrhyperreddy

పల్నాడు పెద్దిరెడ్డి

@mrhyperreddy ·
24 Oct

తిలక్ - నువ్వు కాల్ ఇవ్వలేదు
నితీష్ - నువ్వు వచ్చేసేయ్ నేను వచ్చేస్తా ఆరాంసే

తిలక్ - రేయ్ రెండు అని చెప్పురా పోనీ

ఎంత బాగుందో
ఇంటర్నేషనల్ మ్యాచ్ లో తెలుగులో మాట్లాడుకుంటుంటే 😍

Reply on Twitter 2113958622615232589 Retweet on Twitter 2113958622615232589 2165 Like on Twitter 2113958622615232589 16719 X 2113958622615232589
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
drsjaishankar

Dr. S. Jaishankar

Verified account @drsjaishankar ·
23 Oct

Paid a visit to the historic Ateshgah fire temple in Baku.

A symbol of the historical and cultural connect between our two peoples.

🇮🇳 🇦🇿

Reply on Twitter 2113680108695195986 Retweet on Twitter 2113680108695195986 1653 Like on Twitter 2113680108695195986 15584 X 2113680108695195986
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
jspbvmnaresh

JSP Naresh

Verified account @jspbvmnaresh ·
24 Oct

ఎప్పుడైనా కానీ మోడీ గారు ముస్లింని ఖతం చేస్తా అన్నాడా లేదు కదా..
అయినా
ఒక్కసారి అయినా మోడీకి ఓటు వేస్తారా ముస్లింలు. అలాంటిది రాహుల్ గాంధీ హిందువులని హిందూ వాదులని దేశం నుంచి తరిమియాలని 100 సార్లు అన్నారు అయినా హిందువులు వాడికి ఓట్లు వేస్తున్నారు.వాడి చెప్పులు నాకుతూ

Reply on Twitter 2113909101835243981 Retweet on Twitter 2113909101835243981 372 Like on Twitter 2113909101835243981 1004 X 2113909101835243981

Recent Posts

  • Orders on Interim Maintenance Applications under various laws October 24, 2026
  • Rama Vs Sandeep Purkayastha and Anr on 01 May 2025 October 24, 2026
  • Mahima Vs Ved Prakash Patel on 27 May 2024 October 24, 2026
  • Rakesh Sharma Vs Manju Devi and Ors on 12 May 2026 October 24, 2026
  • Brijesh Rajkumar Suri Vs Navita Brijesh Suri on 16 Sep 2026 October 20, 2026

Most Read Posts

  • Parvinder Singh Khurana Vs Enforcement of Directorate on 19 May 2026 (1,240 views)
  • Application for Exemption from Personal Appearance During Investigation – Format, Procedure & Sample Draft (1,133 views)
  • Application for Modification of Bail Conditions – Format, Procedure & Sample Draft (1,026 views)
  • Exemption Application Under Section 205 CrPC – Format, Procedure & Sample Draft (956 views)
  • Representation for Deletion of Name from FIR – Format, Procedure & Sample Draft (950 views)
  • Pune Bar Association Vs Union of India on 22 May 2026 (881 views)
  • Life Cycle Stages of a Criminal Writ Petition Before a High Court (824 views)
  • Dr. Garima Dubey and Ors Vs Dr. Saurabh Anand Dubey on 21 Apr 2026 - Judgement Summary (774 views)
  • Surety Affidavit Format – Draft, Legal Requirements & Sample Template (767 views)
  • Compromise-Based Quashing in Matrimonial Cases – Complete Legal Strategy (719 views)

Tags

Reportable Judgement or Order (451)2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision (435)Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes (390)Landmark Case (390)1-Judge Bench Decision (384)Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to (303)Work-In-Progress Article (215)3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision (102)Sandeep Pamarati (92)Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty (80)Issued or Recommended Guidelines or Directions or Protocols to be followed (72)Perjury Under Section 340 CrPC (71)Absurd Or After Thought Or Baseless Or False Or General Or Inherently Improbable Or Improved Or UnSpecific Or Omnibus Or Vague Allegations (63)Reprimands or Setbacks to YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh (49)Summary Post (47)CrPC 482 - Quash (44)Abuse Or Misuse of Process of Court (44)CrPC 125 or BNSS 144 - Order for Maintenance of Wives Children and Parents (43)HM Act Sec 13 - Divorce Granted to Husband (42)Divorce Granted on Cruelty ground (42)

Categories

Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification (772)Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments (329)High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (193)High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification (168)High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification (112)High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification (96)Legal Procedure/Tool (86)High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification (71)High Court of Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification (63)LLB Study Material (60)General Study Material (56)Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications (55)High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification (53)High Court of Kerala Judgment or Order or Notification (48)Judicial Activism (for Public Benefit) (47)Prakasam DV Cases (46)District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification (45)High Court of Madhya Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (39)High Court of Telangana Judgment or Order or Notification (29)High Court of Calcutta Judgment or Order or Notification (28)

Recent Comments

  • Aman Kumar on Case Lifecycle Explorer – BNS s.85, DV Act and Maintenance
  • ShadesOfKnife on How to Challenge Ex Parte Orders in Criminal and Matrimonial Proceedings – Legal Remedies
  • pradeep jain on How to Challenge Ex Parte Orders in Criminal and Matrimonial Proceedings – Legal Remedies
  • Lawyer Sonia on Regular Bail Application Format (Section 437/439 CrPC)
  • vinod gupta on Reply to Section 41A CrPC Notice – Format with Legal Explanation

Archives of SoK

  • October 2026 (16)
  • September 2026 (13)
  • August 2026 (6)
  • July 2026 (19)
  • June 2026 (19)
  • May 2026 (24)
  • April 2026 (33)
  • March 2026 (42)
  • February 2026 (30)
  • January 2026 (21)
  • December 2025 (2)
  • November 2025 (3)
  • October 2025 (17)
  • September 2025 (12)
  • August 2025 (5)
  • July 2025 (10)
  • 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 feed: Cloudflare Status Cloudflare Status

  • AMD (Ahmedabad) on 2026-11-02 November 2, 2026
    Oct 8, 16:40 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in AMD (Ahmedabad) datacenter between 2026-11-02 21:00 and 2026-11-03 01:00 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 in the affected region. For PNI / CNI customers […]
    Cloudflare Status

RSS feed: List of Spam Server IPs from Project Honeypot List of Spam Server IPs from Project Honeypot

  • 35.236.155.255 | S October 24, 2026
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 11 | First: 2026-10-24 | Last: 2026-10-24
Owned and Operated by Advocate Sandeep Pamarati and Advocate Suprajaa Rajan
Proudly powered by WordPress
Theme: Flint by Star Verte LLC

Bad Behavior has blocked 266 access attempts in the last 7 days.

pixel