9 respondents in this DVC.
Tag: PWDV Act Sec 20 – Maintenance Granted
Samagowni Padmavathi Vs Samagowni Sri Hari on 18 April, 2015
Maintenance ordered in this judgment.
Pothuri Lakshmi Vs Pothuri Kiran on 30 September, 2016
This is from Para 20 of this judgment. Read and enjoy.
Hence, it is well Further it is also settled, that the present Act does not make any exception, in favour of those who are physically challenged. The Act recognizes that right of women to be maintained even by a physically challenged husband. Thus the contention of husband that he is not working and not earning is unstainable. Further more, economic abuse means deprivation of all or any economic or financial resources to which woman is entitled under any law or custom. It is customary that a man is legally and morally obligated to provide material needs and means of livelihood to a wife and child. Hence, it is well established by the petitioner that she faced economic abuse in the hands of respondents. Accordingly she is entitled for maintenance.
Boyapati Bharathi Vs Boyapati Srinivasa Rao on 6 March, 2018
No comment. Just read
Velpula Kalyani Vs Velpula Venkata Rao on 4 December, 2017
It seems, the burden of proof is pushed onto the husband who has to prove that he didn’t commit DV. This is the essence of this judgment.
Note: The husband was acquitted in the IPC 498A case filed by Knife. Here is the judgment.
Ganipineni Sudharani Vs Ganipineni KrishnaMohan on 2 May, 2017
Here is another BS judgment from same justice. Blatant misinterpretation of an earlier Supreme Court order to cause advantage to the party of Knife. Either by ignorance or for kickbacks received. God Knows
Shame on him.
Ravuri Venkata Lakshmi Mahathi Vs Ravuri Venkata Durga Butchi Rajeswararao on 22 April, 2016
Read this judgment to understand how the biased judges give liberal reliefs using gender-biased laws such as PWDV Act. In the process wrongly interpret the Delhi High Court judgment, wherein in reality High Court has declined giving maintenance to unscrupulous knife, our judge in this present case understood and interpreted it totally wrongly and to suit the Knife.
The judgment cited in this order and wrongly interpreted is available here.
Madhala Sujatha Vs Madhala Srinivasulu on 8 June, 2015
Interesting points in this case of DV.
PW1 has deposed in her chief examination that at the time of her marriage her parents have given cash of Rs.1,81,000/- and gold ornaments weighing 20 sovereigns to the respondent no.1. PW1 has stated during the course of her cross-examination that the said cash and gold ornaments were handed over to the respondents at their(petitioner) house about 10 days prior to her marriage. PW2 has stated during the course of his cross-examination that the parents of PW1 have given cash of Rs.1,81,000/-, gold ornaments weighing 21 sovereigns to RW1 and his parents at the time performing marriage of PW1 and RW1. Therefore, there is inconsistency in the evidence of PW1 itself and also in the evidence of PW1 and PW2 regarding the time and occasion of presentation of alleged dowry to RW1 and his parents by her parents.
There is no evidence of PW1 before this Court that any cash of Rs.20,000/- was given to the respondents for purchasing cloths.
PW1 has also stated during the course of her cross-examination that there are bills to show that the gold ornaments weighing 21 sovereigns that were presented to the respondents were purchased by her parents. The alleged bills are not produced before this Court to show that that the alleged gold ornaments were purchased by the parents of PW1 immediately, prior to or at the time of marriage of PW1 with RW1. The parents of PW1 are not even examined on the side of the petitioner to prove the alleged presentation of dowry of cash and gold ornaments to RW1 and
his parents. The evidence of PW2 also do not reveal that the alleged dowry was presented by the parents of PW1 to RW1 and his parents in his presence. Therefore, it is held that the petitioner has failed to substantiate her contention that the alleged dowry was presented by her parents to RW1 and his parents in her marriage.
Shaik Shakheela Vs Shaik Mahamad Rafi on 22 September, 2017
This is another ex parte order in the DV Case. Since there is no challenge to the averments of the Knife in the petition, Judge liberally allows reliefs.
Shaik Haseena Vs Md. Karimulla on 29 June, 2016
This case deals with economic abuse aspect of Domestic Violence Act.
From Para 21,
Though she deposed the above allegations in the above manner the said alleged facts stated by petitioner in her chief examination were not mentioned in her petition. For the 1st time she came up with all the above allegations in her evidence. Moreover if really her version of allegations about respondent family is true that is the respondent family trying to kill her, no women will be dare enough to stay in her in laws house even after their attempt to kill her. Further on this aspect it is also stated by her that her parents would come on the next day after receiving the information which is unbelievable. So, all the allegations against respondent and his family members appeared unbelievable and omnibus allegations.
The cherry on the cake declaration by the judge come in this para 23. Enjoy the misandrist rhetoric…
But he is not doing so, the same is also admitted by him in his cross examination that he is not paying any maintenance to pay the petitioner and his daughter. So, such attitude of remaining idle without maintaining his wife and child depending upon others also creates a mental agony to the Indian wife, particularly as the husband is bounded to maintain his family even though she is divorced unable to maintain herself. Moreover, it is also settled legislation that a able bodied husband is liable to maintain his wife and children even though he has no employment. Hence, the circumstances and the attitude of the respondent comes under purview of economic abuse as per domestic violence act. Hence, it is well established by the petitioner that she faced economic abuse in the hands of respondents. Accordingly she is entitled for maintenance.
