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: No Domestic Relationship Exists

Harini H Vs Kavya H and Ors on 17 Jun 2021

Posted on July 1, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

A brain dead person seems to have tried to implicate unrelated person into a false DV case but the single bench of Karnataka High Court quashed such designed…

From Para 2,

2. The argument of the petitioner’s counsel is that the petitioner has been unnecessarily made a party by the 1st respondent in her application before the Magistrate under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (‘Act’ for short). He submits that the only allegation found is that the 1st respondent suspected her husband to be having illegal relationship with the petitioner and he thought of bringing her to his house. Therefore he argued that the petitioner herein should not have been made a party in the application filed under Section 12 of the Act as she does not fall within the meaning of respondent as mentioned under Section 2(q) of the Act. So far as the petitioner is concerned it cannot be said that she has committed domestic violence to prosecute her to claim any relief from her. In fact if the reliefs claimed in the application made under Section 12 of the Act are perused, no relief is claimed against the petitioner and therefore the proceedings against her requires to be quashed.

Harini H Vs Kavya H and Ors on 17 Jun 2021

Citations :

Other Sources :

Kar HC | Persons only in ‘domestic relationship’ as per S. 2 of Domestic Violence Act, 2005 can be made as respondent under S. 12 of DV Act

Posted in High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision CrPC 482 - Quash Harini H Vs Kavya H and Ors No Domestic Relationship Exists PWDV Act - DV Case Quashed PWDV Act Sec 2(f) - Domestic Relationship PWDV Act Sec 2(q) – Unrelated Women Can Not Be a Respondent Reportable Judgement or Order | Leave a comment

Om Parkash Syngal and others Vs Aditi Garg on 01 December, 2015

Posted on April 15, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

Hon’ble High Court of Patna has quashed the false DV case of the cunning grand-daughter, holding that there is no domestic relationship as there is no shared household between them.

Aditi was just 17 years old when she filed the complaint. The complaint had been filed through her father Arun Garg being the natural guardian.
Om Parkash Syngal and others Vs Aditi Garg on 01 December, 2015

Posted in High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged No Domestic Relationship Exists No Shared Household Om Parkash Syngal and others Vs Aditi Garg PWDV Act - Case on Grand Father by Grand Daughter PWDV Act - DV Case Quashed | Leave a comment

Kuppilli Sridhar Kumar Vs Kuppili Siva Santoshi Ramani Swathi on 28 June, 2013

Posted on April 14, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

Another judgments from Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, where in DVC on brother-in-law and sister-in-law were quashed due to lack of specific allegations.
Kuppilli Sridhar Kumar Vs Kuppili Siva Santoshi Ramani Swathi on 28 June, 2013

Posted in High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Discourage Roping In All Relatives Of In-Laws Or Distant Relatives Kuppilli Sridhar Kumar Vs Kuppili Siva Santoshi Ramani Swathi No Domestic Relationship Exists | Leave a comment

Giduthuri Kesari Kumar And Others Vs State of Telangana on 16 February 2015

Posted on October 15, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

A landmark quash judgment by Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh, which laid down few criteria only under which DVC quash under CrPC 482 is maintainable.

From Para 13,

The next aspect is having regard to the fact that the reliefs provided under Section 18 to 22 are civil reliefs and enquiry under Sec. 12 of D.V. Act is not a trial of a criminal case, whether the respondents can seek for quashment of the proceedings that they were unnecessarily roped in and thereby continuation of the proceedings amounts to abuse of process of Court etc., pleas. In my considered view, having regard to the facts that the scheme of the Act which provide civil reliefs and the Magistrate can lay his own procedure by not taking coercive steps in general course and the enquiry being not the trial of a criminal offence, the respondents cannot rush with 482 Cr.P.C petitions seeking quashment of the proceedings on the ground that they were unnecessarily roped in. They can establish their non involvement in the matter and non-answerability to the reliefs claimed by participating in the enquiry. It is only in exceptional cases like without there existing any domestic relationship as laid under Section 2(f) of the D.V. Act between the parties, the petitioner filed D.V case against them or a competent Court has already acquitted them of the allegations which are identical to the ones leveled in the Domestic Violence Case, the respondents can seek for quashment of the proceedings since continuation of the proceedings in such instances certainly amounts to abuse of process of Court.

Giduthuri Kesari Kumar And Others Vs State Of Telangana on 16 February, 2015

Citations: 2015 ALD CRL AP 2 470

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/71870497/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5608f8dce4b01497111438bd


Index of all Domestic Violence Cases is here.

Posted in High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Giduthuri Kesari Kumar And Others Vs State Of Telangana Go For Appeal Instead Of Quash Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Maintainability No Domestic Relationship Exists No Shared Household PWDV Act - DV Case Not Quashed PWDV Act Sec 29 - Appeal Available Sandeep Pamarati | Leave a comment

P.Sugunamma And Others Vs State Of A.P. on 19 January, 2015

Posted on October 15, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This is a quash judgment from Hon’ble High of Andhra Pradesh, wherein the DVC on relatives of husband are quashed on grounds that there is ‘no shared household’ and ‘no domestic relationship’ conditions.

5. ( i) Coming back to the facts of the case, all the petitioners are residents of Prakasam District whereas the respondent is a resident of Hyderabad. There is nothing on record to show that the present petitioners had any domestic relationship and lived together with the 2nd respondent in a shared household at any point of time. Further after the proceedings in Crime No.204 of 2010 were quashed by this Court, by orders dated 04.10.2012, the present DV case is filed by the 2nd respondent.
6 . Viewed thus, this Court finds that the petitioners have made out valid and sufficient grounds to quash the proceedings against them in D.V.C.No.18 of 2012 on the file of VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal, Ranga Reddy District.
7. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed. Consequently, the proceedings against the petitioners herein in D.V.C.No.18 of 2012 on the file of VI Metropolitan Magistrate, Medchal, Ranga Reddy District are hereby quashed.

P.Sugunamma And Others Vs State Of A.P. on 19 January, 2015

Indiankanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/196776515/

Citation:


Earlier 498a case that was quashed is available here.


The index page is here.

Posted in High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 498A Case Dismissed Earlier No Domestic Relationship Exists No Shared Household P.Sugunamma And Others Vs State Of A.P. PWDV Act - DV Case Quashed Same Allegations in IPC 498A and DVC Sandeep Pamarati | Leave a comment

Dimple Jatin Khanna Vs Anita Advani And Anr on 9 April, 2015

Posted on August 1, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

In this judgment of High Court of Bombay, the DVC is quashed under Section 482 CrPC, as the petitioner was not having any domestic relationship with the deceased Rajesh Khanna, in the nature of marriage.

 

Dimple Jatin Khanna Vs Anita Advani And Anr on 9 April, 2015
Posted in High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Dimple Jatin Khanna Vs Anita Advani And Anr Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes No Domestic Relationship Exists Sandeep Pamarati Sensational Or Peculiar Cases | Leave a comment

Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav A Vs Ranantrao Shivram Adhav and Anr on 27 January, 1988

Posted on May 27, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court laid out this judgment to the extent of… Hindu woman marrying a Hindu man having a lawfully wedded wife is not entitled to maintenance.

From Para 8,

8. We therefore, hold that the marriage of a woman in accordance with the Hindu rites with a man having a living spouse is a complete nullity in the eye of law and she is not entitled to the benefit of s. 125 of the Code.

Smt. Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav A Vs Ranantrao Shivram Adhav And ... on 27 January, 1988

 

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged CrPC 125 - Maintenance Denied No Domestic Relationship Exists Sandeep Pamarati Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav A Vs Ranantrao Shivram Adhav | Leave a comment

Moodududla Srinivas Vs N.Usha Rani on 13 April, 2017

Posted on May 27, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

In this Andhra Pradesh High Court judgment, Dr. Justice D Siva Sankara Rao ordered that as no relation exists in the nature of marriage, no maintenance is maintainable in section 125 as well as Domestic Violence Cases.

Moodududla Srinivas Vs Smt .N.Usha Rani on 13 April, 2017
Posted in High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision CrPC 125 - Maintenance Denied Moodududla Srinivas Vs N.Usha Rani No Domestic Relationship Exists PWDV Act Sec 20 - Maintenance Denied | Leave a comment

Indra Sarma vs V.K.V.Sarma on 26 November, 2013

Posted on May 26, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This is awesome judgment from Hon’ble Supreme Court that reaffirmed that When there is no relationship in the nature of marriage, no DV can apply.

iStory!

Ms. Indra Sarma, an unmarried woman, left her job and began a “live-in” relationship with Mr. V.K.V. Sarma for a period as long as 18 years, despite knowing that he was married. Mr. Sarma abandoned Ms. Sarma in a state where she could not maintain herself. Under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, failure to maintain a woman involved in a “domestic relationship” amounts to “domestic violence.” Two lower courts held that Mr. V.K.V. committed domestic violence by not maintaining Ms. Sarma, and directed Mr. Sarma to pay a maintenance amount of Rs.18,000 per month. Thereafter, on appeal, the High Court of Karnataka set aside the orders of the lower courts on the ground that Ms. Sarma was aware that Mr. Sarma was married and thus her relationship with him would fall outside the protected ambit of “relationship in the nature of marriage” under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. On further appeal, the Supreme Court, while affirming the High Court’s order, created an exception to the general rule. The Supreme Court clarified that a woman who begins to live with a man who is already married to someone else, without knowing that he is married, will still be considered to be in a “domestic relationship” under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005; thus, the man’s failure to maintain her will amount to “domestic violence” within the meaning of the Act and she will be eligible to claim reliefs such as maintenance and compensation. This case is important because it established for the first time such an exception and calls for legislative action to protect women like Ms. Sarma whose contributions in a joint household are often overlooked.

Guidelines issues in the Judgment

55. We may, on the basis of above discussion cull out some guidelines for testing under what circumstances, a live-in relationship will fall within the expression “relationship in the nature of marriage” under Section 2(f) of the DV Act. The guidelines, of course, are not exhaustive, but will definitely give some insight to such relationships.

1) Duration of period of relationship Section 2(f) of the DV Act has used the expression “at any point of time”, which means a reasonable period of time to maintain and continue a relationship which may vary from case to case, depending upon the fact situation.

(2) Shared household The expression has been defined under Section 2(s) of the DV Act and, hence, need no further elaboration.

(3) Pooling of Resources and Financial Arrangements Supporting each other, or any one of them, financially, sharing bank accounts, acquiring immovable properties in joint names or in the name of the woman, long term investments in business, shares in separate and joint names, so as to have a long standing relationship, may be a guiding factor.

(4) Domestic Arrangements Entrusting the responsibility, especially on the woman to run the home, do the household activities like cleaning, cooking, maintaining or upkeeping the house, etc. is an indication of a relationship in the nature of marriage.

(5) Sexual Relationship Marriage like relationship refers to sexual relationship, not just for pleasure, but for emotional and intimate relationship, for procreation of children, so as to give emotional support, companionship and also material affection, caring etc.

(6) Children Having children is a strong indication of a relationship in the nature of marriage. Parties, therefore, intend to have a long standing relationship. Sharing the responsibility for bringing up and supporting them is also a strong indication.

(7) Socialization in Public Holding out to the public and socializing with friends, relations and others, as if they are husband and wife is a strong circumstance to hold the relationship is in the nature of marriage.

(8) Intention and conduct of the parties Common intention of parties as to what their relationship is to be and to involve, and as to their respective roles and responsibilities, primarily determines the nature of that relationship.

Indra Sarma vs V.K.V.Sarma on 26 November, 2013

Citations: [AIR 2014 SC 309], [Manu/SC/1230/2013], [2014-1 LW.(Crl.) 129], [2013 SCC 15 755], [2014 SCC CIV 5 440], [2014 SCC CRI 6 593], [2013 SCC ONLINE SC 1042], [2013 KERLT 4 763], [2013 GUJ LH 3 720], [2014 AIC 133 225], [2014 ALR 102 711], [2014 LW 1 561], [2013 AIOL 781], [2014 AIR BOMR 1 615], [2014 ALLMR CRI SC 319], [2014 BOMCR CRI SC 1 496], [2014 JLJR SC 1 549], [2014 RCR CRIMINAL SC 1 179]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/192421140/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af32e4b0149711415ca2


The index page is here.

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Indra Sarma vs V.K.V.Sarma Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes No Domestic Relationship Exists PWDV Act - Women In Live-In Relationships Entitled To Maintenance PWDV Act Sec 20 - Maintenance Denied Reportable Judgement or Order | Leave a comment

Kiran Dhar Vs Alok Berman on 14 May, 2014

Posted on May 26, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This Allahabad High Court judgment also clarifies established below legal point in Maintenance case under section 125 of CrPC.

In the absence of any custom and in absence of any decree for divorce, it cannot be said that marriage between Alok Berman and Smt. Rani was dissolved, which goes to show that Alok Berman was still legally married husband of Smt. Rani, who was, admittedly, alive at the time of marriage of Smt. Kiran Dhar with Alok Berman, and the marriage between them was not annulled as per law.

Smt.Kiran Dhar vs Alok Berman on 14 May, 2014

 

Posted in High Court of Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged CrPC 125 - Maintenance Denied Kiran Dhar Vs Alok Berman No Domestic Relationship Exists | Leave a comment

Post navigation

  • Older posts

Search within entire Content of “Shades of Knife”

My Legal Twitter Timeline

Tweets by @SandeepPamarati

My MRA Twitter Timeline

Tweets by @Shadesofknife

Recent Posts

  • Sana Nitish Kumar Reddy Vs State of Telangana on 26 April 2023 June 6, 2023
  • Captain Manjit Singh Virdi (Retd.) Vs Hussain Mohammed Shattaf and Ors on 18 May 2023 May 30, 2023
  • 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

Most Read Posts

  • Premchand Vs State of Maharashtra on 03 Mar 2023 (1,220 views)
  • In Re Policy Strategy for Grant of Bail (Guidelines Issued) on 31 Jan 2023 (1,041 views)
  • Shilpa Sailesh Vs Varun Sreenivasan on 01 May 2023 (839 views)
  • Y.Narasimha Rao and Ors Vs Y.Venkata Lakshmi and Anr on 9 Jul 1991 (754 views)
  • Ritu @ Ridhima and Another Vs Sandeep Singh Sangwan on 15 Mar 2022 (646 views)
  • Rakesh Raman Vs Kavita on 26 Apr 2023 (632 views)
  • P Sivakumar and 2 Ors Vs State of Tamil Nadu on 09 Feb 2023 (605 views)
  • YS Jagan Mohan Reddy Vs Central Bureau of Investigation on 26 Aug 2022 (572 views)
  • Life Cycle stages of a Public Interest Litigation (WP-PIL) in a High Court (548 views)
  • State of Maharashtra Vs Dr. Praful B. Desai on 01 Apr 2003 (544 views)

Tags

Reportable Judgement or Order (335)Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes (334)Landmark Case (322)2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision (272)Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to (220)Work-In-Progress Article (218)1-Judge Bench Decision (156)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 (647)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

  • June 2023 (1)
  • 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 (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

  • FRA (Frankfurt) on 2023-06-16 June 16, 2023
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Jun 16, 00:00 - 05:00 UTCJun 7, 14:40 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in FRA (Frankfurt) datacenter on 2023-06-16 between 00:00 and 05:00 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 […]
  • AMS (Amsterdam) on 2023-06-15 June 15, 2023
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Jun 15, 23:30 UTC  -  Jun 16, 05:30 UTCJun 5, 16:40 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in AMS (Amsterdam) datacenter between 2023-06-15 23:30 and 2023-06-16 05:30 UTC. Traffic might be re-routed from this location, hence there is a possibility of a slight increase in latency during this […]
  • FRA (Frankfurt) on 2023-06-15 June 15, 2023
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Jun 15, 00:00 - 05:00 UTCJun 7, 14:20 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in FRA (Frankfurt) datacenter on 2023-06-15 between 00:00 and 05:00 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

  • 94.131.119.116 | SDW June 7, 2023
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 373 | First: 2023-06-05 | Last: 2023-06-07
  • 200.222.71.218 | SD June 7, 2023
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 41 | First: 2022-10-22 | Last: 2023-06-07
  • 175.165.183.175 | SD June 7, 2023
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 31 | First: 2022-01-13 | Last: 2023-06-07
Proudly powered by WordPress
Theme: Flint by Star Verte LLC

Bad Behavior has blocked 1057 access attempts in the last 7 days.

pixel