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

Prakash Vinayak Gaikwad and Ors Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr on 13 Feb 2020

Posted on October 10, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Bombay High Court held that when there is No Shared household, so no domestic relationship so no DVC maintainable on family members.

From Para 7,

7 So far as original respondent nos.2 to 4 i.e. mother, sister and brother of the husband are concerned, it is averred in the application at paragraph 10 that mother and sister of the husband came to Pune for residing there for fifteen days. During that fifteen days, sister of the husband used to quarrel with the aggrieved person with a reason that the aggrieved person was not preparing chapatis in proper manner and chapatis prepared by her were not liked by mother of the husband. Some routine allegations are made in paragraph 10 and it is averred that on say of the mother and sister, the husband used to beat the aggrieved person. It is further averred that the husband, his mother and sister then took the Mangalsutra from the aggrieved person when she proceeded to her parental house on 25th January 2017. It is apparent from the pleadings in the application that subsequently, the aggrieved person returned to her matrimonial house and cohabited with her husband. It is not further pleaded that her Mangalsutra was not returned to her thereafter.
8 So far as petitioner no.4/original respondent no.4 – brother of the husband is concerned, it appears that he is suffering from some ailment and for his treatment, he had come to Pune and was admitted at the Jehangir Hospital. It is further averred that the aggrieved person was frightened of this brother of her husband. The learned counsel for petitioners/original respondents submitted that he is suffering from mental ailment and this fact is clear from pleadings made in the application that he was admitted in the Jehangir Hospital at Pune.
9 Definition of domestic violence found in Section 3 is an inclusive definition having wide scope. However, to constitute an act of domestic violence, the act must be having certain intensity as well as repetitions. Short visits of parental relatives of the husband are not sufficient to rope them in a proceeding under the Domestic Violence Act.

Prakash Vinayak Gaikwad and Ors Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr on 13 Feb 2020

Citations:

Other Sources:


Index of DV Judgments is here.

Posted in High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision CrPC 482 – DVC Proceeding Quashed No Domestic Relationship Exists No Shared Household Prakash Vinayak Gaikwad and Ors Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr PWDV Act - DV Case Quashed | Leave a comment

Mummireddygari Prathap Reddy and Ors Vs Mummireddygari Srivani and Ors on 17 Jul 2023

Posted on October 10, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of AP High Court held that when there is No Shared household, so no domestic relationship so no DVC maintainable on family members.

From Para 7,

7. A perusal of the D.V.C. application would show that the aggrieved woman’s husband and in-laws and the siblings of her husband all are natives of Adapareddypalli Village, Tirupathi Rural Mandal, Chittoor District. By the time the D.V.C. was filed the husband of the aggrieved woman has been working as a Software Engineer at Houstan, Texas, United States of America. Aggrieved woman’s in-laws are living at their native places. Siblings of the aggrieved woman’s husband are also employed and Sri M.Suresh Reddy is working at Bangalore and Sri M.Prasad Reddy working at Hyderabad or Tirupathi. The application in D.V.C. also indicates that subsequent to the marriage the spouses lived for some time at Adapareddypalli Village and thereafter they lived at Mysore of Karnataka State and thereafter they went Abroad and lived together at Houstan, Texas, United States of America. Finally the aggrieved woman and her child came back to India and they have been living with the woman’s parents at Aditya Nagar, Nellore in SPSR Nellore District. D.V.C. was filed at Nellore. All the above facts are not in dispute.

From Paras 9 and 10, (All the respondents, except husband, reside are different locations; No shared household)

9. Coming to the parents and siblings of her husband, at para No.4 of the application, the aggrieved woman states that respondent Nos.4 and 5 therein, who are siblings of her husband, used to visit Adapareddypalli Village during weekends when she was brought by her husband from Mysore to the native place. It is on those occasions, the siblings of her husband used to harass her for money and additional dowry.
10. Coming to her in-laws, the aggrieved person at pares No.5 of her application in D.V.C. mentions that all the cruelty and bad conduct of her husband used to be informed by her to her in-laws, but they used to support their son and all of them together demanded her to bring additional dowry. It is with those allegations, the D.V.C. was filed seeking various reliefs.

From Para 17,

17. The term shared household is hinged on the concept of intentional residence of the parties in one household. Mere fleeting or casual living does not make one a shared household vide Satish Chander Ahuja v. Sneha Ahujal and Rajnesh v. Neha2. In this regard, learned counsel for petitioners cited the judgment of the then composite High Court in P.Sugunamma v. State of A.P.3. Referring to a similar situation where relatives of the husband have not been living along with the spouses but living elsewhere with periodical or sporadic visits, it was held that where any person who is so related who has been not living or had not lived together at any point of time with the aggrieved person in a shared household they cannot be said to be in domestic relationship. To the similar effect is the law spelt out by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Prakash Vinayak Gaikwad v. State of Maharashtra4. The averments in the application in D.V.C. of the aggrieved person do indicate that since the time of marriage it is the spouses who lived together under one roof at different places at all times and the remaining respondents who are their family members have been living at different other places and in their own respective houses. It is on occasions they paid visits to the spouses. Such occasional visits were only meant for those occasions and they were never intended and could not be intended to be visits making one to think that they are holding shared household. The definition of “aggrieved person” under Section 2(a) of the Act, 2005 requires a domestic relationship and domestic relationship as defined in Section 2(f) of the Act, 2005 means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared household. The facts mentioned in the application in D.V.C. clearly show that, that domestic relationship is absent between the aggrieved woman on one hand and petitioner Nos.2 to 5 on the other hand. It is in that view of the matter, one has to agree with the contentions of the learned counsel for petitioners that without there being any case disclosed by the application in D.V.C. permitting the learned Magistrate to take up further proceedings against them would be abuse of process of Court.

Mummireddygari Prathap Reddy and Ors Vs Mummireddygari Srivani and Ors on 17 Jul 2023

Citations:

Other Sources:


Index of DV Judgments is here.

Posted in High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to CrPC 482 – DVC Proceeding Quashed Landmark Case Mummireddygari Prathap Reddy and Ors Vs Mummireddygari Srivani and Ors No Domestic Relationship Exists No Shared Household PWDV Act - DV Case Quashed | Leave a comment

Dhananjay Mohan Zombade Vs Prachi Dhananjay Zombade on 18 Jul 2023

Posted on August 4, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge at Aurangabad Bench of Bombay High Court held as follows,

From Para 9,

9. In the backdrop of aforesaid provisions, if the precedents are considered, then it is clear that the Hon’ble Apex Court no doubt, in the case of Kamatchi (supra) has held that the proceedings under the DV Act are essentially in the nature of civil proceedings. It is however, pertinent to note that the said judgment is passed in the context of challenge to the order passed by the Trial Court holding that the proceeding fled before it is barred by limitation. It is held in paragraph No. 20 of the judgment that :
“20. It is thus clear that the High Court wrongly equated fling of an application under Section 12 of the Act to lodging of a complaint or initiation of prosecution. In our considered view, the High Court was in error in observing that the application under Section 12 of the Act ought to have been fled within a period of one year of the alleged acts of domestic violence.”
Thus, by implication applicability of the provision of Section 468 of Code of Criminal Procedure is excluded. In respectful view of this Court, in the said judgment, the issue whether or not the provisions of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure has application to DV Act, was not involved nor decided therein.

From Para 13,

13. No doubt, the provisions of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be invoked as a matter of course. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Gian Singh vs. State of Punjab, (2012) 10 SCC 303, has held that if the High Court finds that any proceedings is abuse of process of Court then in that case, non-invocation of provisions of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure would not be justified. It needs to be recorded that merely because the enactment of DV Act is to provide for more effective protection of the right of woman, it would not mean that a proceedings which is palpably not tenable shall be allowed to be continued. If it is allowed so, then it will be nothing less than sheer abuse of process of Court. Thus, in the considered view of this Court, the present application for quashment of proceeding under DV Act is maintainable.

From Paras 16, 17 and 18,

16. Learned counsel for the respondent opposed the said submission by stating that the said issue cannot be decided at this stage as the same would be subject matter of trial after leading evidence.
17. In order to decide this controversy, it would be relevant to take note of provisions which define “aggrieved person” and “domestic relationship”. Section 2(a) of DV Act defines “aggrieved person” which reads thus :-
2(a) “aggrieved person” means any woman who is, or has been, in domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondent.
Section 2(f) states “domestic relationship” to be “a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared
household when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family”.
According to these definitions, domestic relationship between aggrieved person and respondent is sine qua non to maintain any proceeding under DV Act. In order to constitute relationship between two persons as domestic relationship, they must live or at any point of time lived together in a shared household when they are related by consanguinity, marriage or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together as a joint family. Admittedly, the relationship of respondent with applicants No. 4 to 6 is as a family member. Thus, in order to constitute domestic relationship, the family members of the aggrieved person must be living together with aggrieved person as joint family. It is, therefore, essential that the applicant pleads that there is domestic relationship between her and respondent and that the other family members have lived or are living together as a joint family, to maintain any such complaint/application under the provisions of the DV Act.
18. In the instant case, applicants No. 4 to 6 have come out with a specific case that they never lived as joint family with the respondent. In order to substantiate the said contention,documentary evidence such as Aadhar Card etc. is placed on record. Genuineness thereof is not challenged. On the other hand perusal of the complaint/application to the Magistrate does not show pleadings that these applicants have lived or living with the respondent together as members of joint family. Thus, for want of specific pleadings, and in view of unimpeachable evidence placed on record by these applicants showing their separate place of residence, the application/complaint against such applicants could not have been entertained as these applicants do not come within the definition of domestic relationship with the respondent.

From Para 21,

21. Unfortunately, similar trend seems to have been adopted and proceedings under DV Act are filed at even distant place i.e. place where aggrieved person resides as per Section 2(s) of Act and not only husband and joint family members residing under one roof are made respondents but distant relatives those who have no domestic relationship are also roped in order to cause harassment and to build pressure on husband. In considered view of this Court the observations made by Hon’ble Apex Court, while dealing with offence under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code, apply to the cases under DV Act, which are filed in clear abuse of process of Court. The present case is squarely covered by illustrations (1), (3) and (7) in case of Bhajanlal (supra) and hence such proceeding cannot be permitted to be continued.

Dhananjay Mohan Zombade Vs Prachi Dhananjay Zombade on 18 Jul 2023

Citations:

Other Sources:

 

https://www.barandbench.com/news/bombay-high-court-concern-rise-trend-women-misusing-domestic-violence-act

 

Bombay High Court Raises Concern Over Misuse of Domestic Violence Act by Estranged Wives

 

Posted in High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision CrPC 482 - Defence Documents may be Examined for Quash CrPC 482 – DVC Proceeding Quashed Dhananjay Mohan Zombade Vs Prachi Dhananjay Zombade Legal Terrorism No Domestic Relationship Exists No Shared Household PWDV Act Sec 2(f) - Domestic Relationship Sandeep Pamarati | Leave a comment

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.

From Para 14,

14) To sum up the findings:
i) Since the remedies under D.V Act are civil remedies, the Magistrate in view of his powers under Section 28(2) of D.V Act shall issue notice to the parties for their first appearance and shall not insist for the attendance of the parties for every hearing and in case of non-appearance of the parties despite receiving notices, can conduct enquiry and pass exparte order with the material available. It is only in the exceptional cases where the Magistrate feels that the circumstance require that he can insist the presence of the parties even by adopting coercive measures.

ii) In view of the remedies which are in civil nature and enquiry is not a trial of criminal case, the quash petitions under Sec.482 Cr.P.C on the plea that the petitioners are unnecessarily arrayed as parties are not maintainable. 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


This decision (with respect to shared householding requirement in DV cases) seems to be overruled by Supreme Court here. This judgment was not considered in the SC judgment.


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 or BNSS 144 - Maintenance Denied No Domestic Relationship Exists Sandeep Pamarati Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav A Vs Ranantrao Shivram Adhav | Leave a comment

Post navigation

  • Older 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
yashtdp_ Yash @yashtdp_ ·
3h

నా ఏడాది కష్టం
నా ట్రాక్ట్రర్లతోనే తొక్కించి
ఈ వైసీపీ గూండాలు
నాశనం చేశారని

ప్రభుత్వం ఆదుకోవాలని
ఈ రైతు వేడుకొంటున్నాడు

పీకలు కోసే దండుపాళ్యం బ్యాచ్ లెక్కన
పట్ట పగలు బంగారుపాళ్యంలో
ఇలా అన్నదాతలను ఏడిపించడానికి
ఆ సైకో జగన్ వచ్చాడా?

జగన్ మీద కేసు పెట్టాలి

ఓదార్పు అని చెప్పి…

Reply on Twitter 1943120114573795536 Retweet on Twitter 1943120114573795536 8 Like on Twitter 1943120114573795536 7 X 1943120114573795536
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
libsoftiktok Libs of TikTok @libsoftiktok ·
10h

BREAKING: T-Mobile has agreed to END its DEI policies according to a new filing with the FCC.

"T-Mobile will no longer have any individual roles or teams focused on DEI. T-Mobile is also removing any references to DEI on its websites and will ensure that the company website and…

Reply on Twitter 1943013704569585959 Retweet on Twitter 1943013704569585959 984 Like on Twitter 1943013704569585959 7547 X 1943013704569585959
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
newsarenaindia News Arena India @newsarenaindia ·
18h

"Won't allow Bengal to become 'West Bangladesh'.

TMC surrendered to fundamentalists."

- State BJP Chief Samik Bhattacharya

Reply on Twitter 1942879361008615442 Retweet on Twitter 1942879361008615442 990 Like on Twitter 1942879361008615442 5206 X 1942879361008615442
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
ani ANI @ani ·
2h

#WATCH | Madhya Pradesh | Bhasma Aarti performed at Mahakaleshwar Jyotirlinga Temple in Ujjain, on the occasion of Guru Purnima.

Reply on Twitter 1943124972601512184 Retweet on Twitter 1943124972601512184 40 Like on Twitter 1943124972601512184 692 X 1943124972601512184
Load More

Recent Posts

  • 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
  • BSA Sec 128 – Communications during marriage June 25, 2025

Most Read Posts

  • Vishal Shah Vs Monalisha Gupta and Ors on 20 Feb 2025 (2,926 views)
  • Mudireddy Divya Vs Sulkti Sivarama Reddy on 26 Mar 2025 (2,404 views)
  • Sukhdev Singh Vs Sukhbir Kaur on 12 Feb 2025 (2,277 views)
  • Madan Kumar Satpathy Vs Priyadarshini Pati on 07 Feb 2025 (1,747 views)
  • Megha Khetrapal Vs Rajat Kapoor on 19 Mar 2025 (1,594 views)
  • Om Prakash Ambadkar Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors on 16 Jan 2025 (1,340 views)
  • Ivan Rathinam Vs Milan Joseph on 28 Jan 2025 (1,156 views)
  • Saikat Das Vs State of West Bengal and Anr on 27 Mar 2025 (967 views)
  • Akkala Rami Reddy Vs State of AP and Anr on 30 Apr 2025 (919 views)
  • Roopa Soni Vs Kamal Narayan Soni on 06 Sep 2023 (823 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) (42)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 (1)
  • 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

  • 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 […]
  • AKL (Auckland) on 2025-07-15 July 15, 2025
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Jul 15, 13:00 - 19:00 UTCJul 10, 03:29 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in AKL (Auckland) datacenter on 2025-07-15 between 13:00 and 19:00 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 […]
  • SOF (Sofia) on 2025-07-15 July 15, 2025
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Jul 15, 01:00 - 04:00 UTCJul 2, 14:35 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in SOF (Sofia) datacenter on 2025-07-15 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 […]

RSS List of Spam Server IPs from Project Honeypot

  • 42.6.177.184 | SD July 9, 2025
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 158 | First: 2022-11-10 | Last: 2025-07-09
  • 2a00:1450:4864:20::245 | SD July 9, 2025
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 363 | First: 2021-07-16 | Last: 2025-07-09
  • 2a00:1450:4864:20::145 | SD July 9, 2025
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 356 | First: 2024-08-25 | Last: 2025-07-09
Owned and Operated by Advocate Sandeep Pamarati
Proudly powered by WordPress
Theme: Flint by Star Verte LLC

Bad Behavior has blocked 2198 access attempts in the last 7 days.

pixel