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 Shared Household

Nahida Rishad Cooper Vs Ali Daruwala and Ors on 25 Feb 2022

Posted on September 13, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of a Sessions Court in Mumbai held as follows:

From Para 5,

5] Perusal of the application under Section 12 of the D. V. Act filed by the applicant has several references to the alleged domestic violence committed by the respondent No. 1. It is not in dispute that he resides separately and not with the appellant or the respondent No. 1. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate in his impugned order has observed that since the respondent No. 1 never resided with the appellant in any shared household he cannot be considered to be the respondent as defined by Section 2 (q) of the D. V. Act. He, therefore, omitted him from the array of the respondents in the main application.

From Para 6,

6] Such an observation of the learned Metropolitan Magistrate however, is wholly misplaced. It is for the simple reason that the proviso to Section 2 (q) of the D. V. Act makes it very clear that an aggrieved wife can also file a complaint against a relative of the husband. The Act nowhere mandates that an aggrieved person can seek relief only against the persons who have shared household with her. Had that been so, it would have been very convenient to cause violence or any other trouble to the aggrieved person through the relatives not sharing the same household and yet remained out of the clutches of the D. V. Act. Rather, holding that any relative of the husband if not sharing or shared the same household cannot be a respondent would amount to giving licence to those relatives to commit violence to the aggrieved person and thereby rendering the very Act meaningless. That just cannot be and certainly was not the intention while enacting the said statute. As observed earlier, there are sufficient references to show that the respondent No. 1 was also a party to the domestic violence committed to the appellant. As such, the proceedings against him was certainly tenable. The learned Metropolitan Magistrate was obviously wrong in holding that the respondent No. 1 since not shared the household with the appellant could not be a respondent as defined by Section 2 (q) of the D. V. Act. Consequently, the impugned order cannot sustain.

Nahida Rishad Cooper Vs Ali Daruwala and Ors on 25 Feb 2022

Index of DV Cases here.

Posted in District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision Misinterpretation of Earlier Judgment or Settle Principle of Law Nahida Rishad Cooper Vs Ali Daruwala and Ors No Shared Household | Leave a comment

Kamlesh Devi Vs Jaipal and Ors on 04 Oct 2019

Posted on April 29, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Apex Court held that, there is no allegations of domestic violence against the respondents and more importantly, there is no shared household between the complainant and the respondents.

The High Court has rightly found in effect that the ingredients of domestic violence are wholly absent in this case. The petitioner and the respondents are not persons living together in a shared household. There is a vague allegation that the respondents are family members. There is not a whisper of the respondents with the petitioner. They appear to be neighbours.

Kamlesh Devi Vs Jaipal and Ors on 04 Oct 2019

Citations :

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/46655686/

https://lawsisto.com/legalnewsread/MzAxMg==/Supreme-Court-If-Parties-Are-Not-Living-Together-In-A-Shared-House-Domestic-Violence-Complaint-Not-Maintainable

https://www.lawyerservices.in/Kamlesh-Devi-Versus-Jaipal-and-Others-2019-10-04

https://lawstreet.co/judiciary/complaint-not-maintainable-if-parties-are-living-separately/


Here is the High Court decision:

The learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Narnaul, after discussing the provisions of the Act found that none of the witnesses on record has established any fact to the effect that the respondents and the petitioner have been living in a shared household and the respondents have caused domestic violence upon them. The Court below also held that no violence whatsoever has been alleged of any kind within the premises of shared household. The only allegation is that though they did obscene activities with the daughters of the petitioner, the allegations as per pleadings are that respondents Jaipal, Krishan Kumar and Sandeep used to misbehave with the daughters of the petitioner, namely, Anusaya and Gaytri while they went outside for the purpose of their study and they used to do obscene activities with the daughters of the petitioner. The findings given by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Narnaul, are correct as per evidence and law. No illegality has been committed by the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Narnaul.
From the perusal of the complaint itself, it transpires that the offence, if any, which has been alleged, falls in the provisions of IPC and it does not attract the provisions of the Act. The important fact that accused Jaipal, Krishan Kumar and Sandeep are the nephews itself will not bring the case under the Act.
The appeal filed by the present petitioner against the judgment of the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Narnaul, before the learned Sessions Judge was also dismissed by giving the reasoning as per law. The learned Sessions Judge also discussed that there is not an iota of evidence that the petitioner Kamlesh Devi and the respondents are living together in share household. Rather, certificate Ex.C.3/Ex.PW.1/C also shows that it has been mentioned therein that Sube Singh alias Shiv Lal, Siri Ram, Chhote Lal and Babu Lal reside separately in separate houses. Protection Officer had also reported that Kamlesh Devi along with her family is residing at Narnaul since a long time and had performed the marriages of her daughters at Narnaul and Smt. Kamlesh Devi and her husband are not residing in Village Gaud. The learned Sessions Judge, Narnaul also held that Kamlesh Devi-petitioner is not aggrieved person under the provision of Section 2(a) of the Act and is not entitled to any protection under Section 18 of the Act. A perusal of the judgments passed by the Courts below shows that the same have been passed as per evidence and law and the same are upheld.

Kamlesh Devi Vs Jaipal and Ors on 16 Sep 2016

Citations :

Other Sources :

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5e24c7f546571b7222aa868e

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision DP Act 2(a) - Not an Aggrieved Person Kamlesh Devi Vs Jaipal and Ors No Shared Household | Leave a comment

S.Vanitha Vs Deputy Commissioner on 15 Dec 2020

Posted on March 15, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A Full bench of the Apex Court, in an attempt to balance the rights of parties, purportedly in exercise of the power under Article 142 of the Constitution, allowed a party to stay in a residence owner by the Parents-in=law.

S.Vanitha Vs Deputy Commissioner on 15 Dec 2020

Citations : [2020 SCC ONLINE SC 1023]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/71453821/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5fe97792814df3882b7c2a16

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision No Shared Household Reportable Judgement or Order S.Vanitha Vs Deputy Commissioner | Leave a comment

Ravneet Kaur Vs Prithpal Singh Dhingra on 24 Feb 2022

Posted on March 15, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

Single judge bench of Delhi High Court held that the Court has to balance the rights of the aggrieved person and the parents-in-law when the question of residence arises for the aggrieved person while her marital relationship subsists.

From Paras 24 and 25,

24. Admittedly where the parties are residing is a flat, having only three bed rooms, a drawing room and the appellant is in possession of a room in the said flat, then considering there are various complaints filed by them against each other; their relations being not cordial, would it in such circumstances, be appropriate for them to stay together and fight every minute of their existence. In Satish Chander Ahuja (supra) in para No.90 the Court had observed we need to strike a balance between the rights of daughter-in-law and her in-laws.
25. Admittedly, the right of residence under Section 19 of the DV Act is not an indefeasible right of residence in shared household, especially, when the daughter-in-law is pitted against aged father-in-law and mother-in-law. In this case, both being senior citizens of aged about 74 and 69 years and being in the evening of their life, are entitled to live peacefully and not to be haunted by the marital discord between their son and daughter-in-law.

From Para 27,

27. Thus, where the residence is a shared household, it does not create any embargo upon the owner to claim eviction against his daughter-in-law. A strained frictional relationship between the parties would be relevant to decide whether the grounds of eviction exist. I am of the considered opinion, since there exist a frictional relationship between the parties, then at the fag end of their lives it would not be advisable for old parents to stay with appellant and hence it would be appropriate if an alternative accommodation is provided to the appellant as is directed in the impugned order per Section 19(1)(f) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act

And finally from Para 28,

28. Thus, there is no force in the appeal and accordingly it is dismissed. The undertaking made at Bar to provide an alternative accommodation to the appellant till her matrimony exists be filed in the form of an affidavit of the respondent within two weeks from today before the learned Trial Court. The execution of decree be postponed till such suitable alternative accommodation is found and the applicant is conveniently shifted therein. The learned Trial Court to impose conditions in case of non-payment of rental including electricity /water charges etc by respondent.

Ravneet Kaur Vs Prithpal Singh Dhingra on 24 Feb 2022

Citations : [2022 SCC ONLINE DEL 594]

Other Sources :

https://caselaw.in/delhi/shared-household-ravneet-kaur-prithpal-singh-dhingra/16/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/6217abd79fca1954d2a81a9a

Posted in High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes No Shared Household Ravneet Kaur Vs Prithpal Singh Dhingra Reportable Judgement or Order | Leave a comment

Latha.P.C and Ors Vs State of Kerala and Ors on 15 Sep 2020

Posted on April 3, 2021 by ShadesOfKnife

A single-judge bench of Kerala High Court, while denying to invoke 482 CrPC to quash a DV case based on the landmark judgment here, held as follows. But Supreme Court had taken a different view in the landmark judgment here just a month later.

From Para 8,

8. The Act is a welfare legislation enacted to provide a remedy in civil law for protection of women from domestic violence. The proceedings under the Act are, therefore, essentially civil in nature except in so far as it relate to Section 31 dealing with the breach of protection order issued under the Act
and Section 33 dealing with failure or refusal by Protection Offices in discharging their duties in terms of the orders issued by the Court. As such, in Vijayalekshmi Amma v. Bindu, 2010 (1) KLT 79, this Court held that a party against whom a proceedings is initiated under Section 12 of the Act cannot approach this court for quashing the proceedings, invoking the power of this Court under Section 482 of the Code, and that the power of this Court under Section 482 can be exercised only in appropriate cases either to give effect to any order passed under the Act or to prevent abuse of the process of the court or to secure the ends of justice, when cognizance is taken by the Magistrate for an offence under subsection (1) of Section 31 or Section 33 of the Act.

…

As evident from the extracted paragraphs of the judgement, this Court has held in the said case that a person to whom notice is issued by the Magistrate in an application under Section 12 of the Act can appear before the Magistrate and contend that the proceedings is not maintainable against him, on the ground either that the person who filed the application is not an ‘aggrieved person’ as defined in Section 2(a) of the Act, or that he would not fall within the definition of the ‘respondent’ in Section 2(q) of the Act, or that the allegations do not make out a case of ‘domestic violence’ as defined in Section 2(g) of the Act or that the reliefs sought are not reliefs provided for in the Act. It was also held by this Court in the said case that such contentions as regards the maintainability of the application, if raised, shall be decided by the Magistrate. It was further held by this Court in the said case that so long as the respondent is not an accused in a proceedings initiated under the Act, he is not even obliged to apply for bail in respect of such proceedings and his personal presence is not mandatory for hearing and disposing of an application under Section 12. In the light of the decision of this Court in Vijayalekshmi, according to me, the Criminal M.C. is not maintainable.

Misuse of Social Welfare (Gender-biased) Laws in India:

From Para 9,

9. Despite the findings aforesaid, it is necessary to mention that in so far as the proceedings under the Act are to be dealt with by criminal courts in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Code, it has become a common practice now to rope in the relatives, at times even distant relatives of the person from whom relief is essentially intended, as respondents in the applications instituted under the Act without any bonafides and with oblique motives, on omnibus and vague allegations, despite various judgements of the Apex Court deprecating that practice. In Preeti Gupta v. State of Jharkhand (2010) 7 SCC 667, the Apex Court has taken note of the said fact and observed that majority of such complaints are filed either on the advice of the lawyers or with their concurrence. Be that as it may. It is also observed that notice is invariably issued to all the respondents in such applications without application of mind as to whether the aggrieved person has made out a case of domestic violence against all of them, as a result of which, it is noticed that some of the proceedings under the Act, where parties are arrayed as respondents without making out a case of domestic violence against them, have become a tool of harassment at the hands of the aggrieved persons to obtain reliefs which they are not entitled to. The statute being a remedial one to protect the women from domestic violence, it has to be enforced having regard to the realities of life. As such, even while taking all endeavours possible to protect the aggrieved persons from domestic violence, the courts have to be extremely cautious and careful to ensure that its powers are not being abused. One of the important steps to be taken towards that direction is to scrutinize the applications meticulously and satisfy that a case of domestic violence as defined in the Act is made out against all the respondents and no one is arrayed as a party to the proceedings on omnibus and vague allegations, so that the court can refrain from issuing notice to them. The provisions in the statute especially Section 28, conferring power on the Magistrate to lay down its own procedure for disposal of an application under Section 12 or under subsection (2) of Section 23 would indicate that the scheme of the statute is that the approach of the courts shall be to enforce the provisions of the Act, keeping in mind the fact that the parties who are close relatives in most of the cases, would at some point of time reconcile their differences and lead a life in harmony and the opportunity for the parties to bring about a settlement of their differences is not lost on account of the steps taken in the proceedings. If proceedings under the Act are permitted to be used as tools of harassment, I have no doubt that the possibility of the parties settling their disputes amicably and leading a life in harmony would be bleak.

Latha.P.C and Ors Vs State of Kerala and Ors on 15 Sep 2020

Citations: [2020 SCC ONLINE KER 4238]

Other Sources :

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/126633191/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5f80abd89fca190ae54bcb50

Posted in High Court of Kerala Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Discourage Roping In All Relatives Of In-Laws Or Distant Relatives Latha.P.C and Ors Vs State of Kerala and Ors Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Maintainability Misinterpretation of Earlier Judgment or Settle Principle of Law No Shared Household Preeti Gupta and Anr Vs State Of Jharkhand and Anr Reportable Judgement or Order | Leave a comment

Santineer Vincent Rajkumar Vs R.Rejitha on 3 August, 2017

Posted on December 17, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

No Shared household, DVC is not maintainable.

Santineer Vincent Rajkumar Vs R.Rejitha on 3 August, 2017

Citation: [2017 (2) LW (Crl.) 399]

Indiankanoon.org or Casemine link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/9488656/


The index page is here.

Posted in High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged No Shared Household Santineer Vincent Rajkumar Vs R.Rejitha

Vijay Verma Vs State NCT of Delhi and Anr on 13 August, 2010

Posted on December 17, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

The US-Resident Dumbo filed DV Case to grab up her father’s property that he had made into the name of his grandson. Shri Shiv Narayan Dhingra ji of Delhi High Court has delivered this judgment wherein the false claim of a woman was crushed due to lack of Shared Household criteria by showing her, her right place and dismissed this Appeal.

Vijay Verma Vs State NCT of Delhi and Anr on 13 August, 2010

Citations: [2010 (118) DRJ 707], [MANU/DE/1946/2010], [2010(7) RCR(Criminal) 1145]

Indiankanoon.org link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/176922704/


Index of all Domestic Violence Cases is here.

Posted in High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Justice Shiv Narayan Dhingra No Shared Household PWDV Act - Misuse For Property Vijay Verma Vs State NCT of Delhi and Anr

Rajkishore Shukla Vs Asha Shukla on 22 September, 2015

Posted on December 17, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

No Shared household hence no DVC.

Rajkishore Shukla Vs Asha Shukla on 22 September, 2015

Citation:

Indiankanoon.org or Casemine link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/70402378/


The index page is here.

Posted in High Court of Madhya Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged No Shared Household PWDV Act - Misuse For Property Rajkishore Shukla Vs Asha Shukla

A.K. Srinivasa Rao and 3 Ors Vs State of AP on 19 January, 2015

Posted on December 17, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

Justice Shri Seetarama Murthi has delivered this judgment.

4. (f) Coming next to the contention that the learned Magistrate ought not to have taken the case on file against the present petitioners for the reason that the petitioners have no ‘domestic relationship’ and that they have never shared the household or lived together in a shared household with the 2nd respondent and her husband, it is necessary to refer to the relevant provisions. Under Section 12 of the Act, an aggrieved person may present an application to the Magistrate seeking one or more reliefs under the Act.

 

A.K. Srinivasa Rao and 3 Ors Vs State of AP on 19 January, 2015

Citation:

Indiankanoon.org or Casemine link: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/173889445/


The index page is here.

Posted in High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged A.K. Srinivasa Rao and 3 Ors Vs State of AP No Shared Household

Domestic Violence Judgments

Posted on December 17, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

Here is a list of Judgments under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 and various facets of violence/cruelty within Matrimonial relationships under various Statutes even before this Act. Life Cycle of a Domestic Violence case under PWDV Act 2005 here.

Bare Act (along with Statement of Objects and Reasons) is here and Rules are here. A 2-judge bench of Supreme Court passed guidelines to handle multiple maintenance litigation here.

 

1971-1980

  1. Narayan Ganesh Dastane Vs Sucheta Narayan Dastane on 19 March, 1975 [Definition of Mental Cruelty; Burden of Proof; Proof beyond reasonable doubt; Condonation of Cruelty]

 

 

1981-1990

 

1991-2000

  1. V.Bhagat Vs D.Bhagat on 19 November, 1993 [defined the meaning of Mental Cruelty with respect to Divorce petition]

 

 

2001-2005

 

2006-2010

  1. Lata Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another on 7 July, 2006 (Right to Marry a person of one’s choice)
  2. S.R. Batra and Anr Vs Taruna Batra on 15 December, 2006 (Supreme Court defined ‘Shared Household‘)
  3. Samar Ghosh vs Jaya Ghosh on 26 March, 2007 (Mental Cruelty defined)
  4. V.K.Vijayalekshmi Amma Vs Bindu V on 2 Dec 2009 ()
  5. Vijay Verma Vs State NCT of Delhi and Anr on 13 August, 2010 (Delhi High Court)
  6. Jovita Olga Ignesia Mascarenhase Coutinho Vs Rajan Maria Coutinho and Anr on 24 Aug 2010 (BHC: Frame Issues after Hearing Both Parties)

2011-2015

  1. Sandhya Manoj Wankhade Vs Manoj Bhimrao Wankhade and Ors on 31 January 2011 (Women can also be made respondents)
  2. Inderjit Singh Grewal Vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 23 August, 2011 (1 year limitation of 468 CrPC applies to DV Cases)
  3. V.D. Bhanot Vs Savita Bhanot on 07 February 2012 (DV Conduct of parties prior to PWDV Act are to be considered; Mental Cruelty)
  4. Buravilli Siva Madhuri Vs Sri Buravilli Satya Venkata Lakshmana Rao and Ors on 25 September, 2012 (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
  5. Ashish Dixit and Ors Vs State of U.P. and Anr on 7 January, 2013 (Quashing of false DVC on relatives of husband)
  6. Mewa Singh and others Vs Sukhjeet Kaur on 29 April 2013 (PHHC: appearance of respondents disposed off)
  7. Markapuram Siva Rao & Others Vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 30 April, 2013 (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
  8. Indra Sarma vs V.K.V.Sarma on 26 November, 2013 (No relationship in the nature of marriage, no DV can apply)
  9. Kolli Babi Sarojini And Others Vs Kolli Jayalaxmi And Another on 29 April, 2014 (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
  10. Ayishabi Vs Shahul Hameed on 16 July, 2014 (KerHC: Dispose within 3 months)
  11. Chandra Sukanya Devi Vs Chandra Srinivasulu on 18 November, 2014 (JMFC Court, Ongole, Andhra Pradesh)
  12. A.K. Srinivasa Rao and 3 Ors Vs State of AP on 19 January, 2015 (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
  13. P.Sugunamma And Others Vs State Of A.P. on 19 January, 2015 (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
  14. Giduthuri Kesari Kumar And Others Vs State of Telangana on 16 February 2015 (AP HC: 2 grounds for quashing a DV Case, No shared household, earlier case dismissed on same allegations)
  15. Rajkishore Shukla Vs Asha Shukla on 22 September, 2015 (Madhya Pradesh High Court)
  16. Krishna Bhatacharjee vs Sarathi Choudhury And Anr on 20 November, 2015 (Dipak Misra says, Judicially separated folks are also within the ambit of Aggrieved person)

2016-2020

  1. Kunapareddy @ Nookala Shanka Balaji Vs Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari On 18 April, 2016 (Court can allow amendments to complaint/petition, before cognizance of same is taken by Court)
  2. Prakash Nagardas Dubal-Shaha Vs Meena Prakash Dubal Shah and Ors on 22 April 2016 (Unsuccessful divorce proceedings cannot adversely affect the maintainability of DVC)
  3. Hiral P Harsora and Ors Vs Kusum Narottamdas Harsora and Ors on October 6, 2016 [Supreme Court strikes down words ‘adult male‘ from the definition of Respondent u/s 2(q)]
  4. Yadlapalli Mary Mani Vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 21 December, 2016 (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
  5. Manmohan Attavar Vs Neelam Manmohan Attavar on 14 July, 2017 (Supreme Court)
  6. Kuppusamy Vs Radhika on 21 July, 2017 (MadHC: Dispose DVC in 2 months)
  7. Santineer Vincent Rajkumar Vs R.Rejitha on 3 August, 2017 (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
  8. Jallarapu Laxman Rao Vs Jallarapu Pedda Venkateswarlu on 1 November, 2017 (AP HC: No Revision u/s 397/401 CrPC, as Sec 29 PWDV Act provides Revision/Appeal)
  9. Sushila Devi Vs Vikas Kumar Singhal And Ors on 9 Feb 2018 (RajHC: Dispose within 2 months)
  10. S Vs J on 17 Apr 2018 (DHC: Frame issues after hearing both parties)
  11. Lalita Toppo Vs State of Jharkhand on 30 October 2018 (Live-in partner can also file DV case)
  12. Shalu Ojha and Prashant Ojha case (File income affidavit as Prescribed in Kusum Sharma)
  13. Ajay Kumar Vs Lata @ Sharuti on 08 April 2019 (BIL pays interim maintenance)
  14. Tillottama Kumari Vs State of Bihar and Ors on 16 May 2019 (PatHC: Dispose DVC in 6 weeks)
  15. Kamlesh Devi Vs Jaipal and Ors on 04 Oct 2019 (SC: No allegations of domestic violence; No shared household)
  16. NS Leelavathi Vs R Shilpa Brunda on 11 December, 2019 (Karnataka High Court)
  17. N.Prasad Vs Harithalakshmi on 20 Jul 2020 (1 year limitation of 468 CrPC applies to DV Cases)
  18. Latha.P.C and Ors Vs State of Kerala and Ors on 15 Sep 2020 (482 CrPC against DVC is not maintainable; Magistrate u/s 28(2) can apply judicial mind of Preliminary objections)
  19. Satish Chander Ahuja Vs Sneha Ahuja on 15 Oct 2020 (Overruled SR Batra judgment regd Shared Household concept; but also emphasized on the alternate accommodation)
  20. S.Vanitha Vs Deputy Commissioner on 15 Dec 2020 ()

 

2021-2025

  1. Dr.P.Pathmanathan and Ors Vs V.Monica and Anr on 18 Jan 2021 ()
  2. Masood Khan Vs. Millie Hazarika on 04 Mar 2021 (482 CrPC against DVC is maintainable as per Satish Chander)
  3. Maya and Ors Vs State of U.P. and Ors on 19 Mar 2021 (AllHC: Dispose DVC in 2 months)
  4. Puttaraju Vs Shivakumari on 01 Apr 2021 (MHC: Time limitation applies only for offence u/s 31 but not for the application u/s 12 of PWDV Act 2005)
  5. Robarto Nieddu Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr on 20 Nov 2021 (Raj HC: non-citizen women residing in India temporarily also are classified as ‘aggrieved person’)
  6. Suyalaly and Anr Vs Alphin Jeyasingh and Ors on 29 Nov 2021 (MadHC: Dispose within 2 months)
  7. Ravneet Kaur Vs Prithpal Singh Dhingra on 24 Feb 2022 (DHC: Daughter-in-law can be evicted but an alternate accommodation must be provided)
  8. Nahida Rishad Cooper Vs Ali Daruwala and Ors on 25 Feb 2022 (BHC: Relatives who have no shared house-holding can also be respondents as per proviso to Sec 2(q))
  9. Vani Santhosh Babu Vs Vijaya Laxmi Vani on 3 Mar 2022 (TelHC: Dispose in 60 days)
  10. Prabha Tyagi Vs Kamlesh Devi on 12 May 2022 (SC: DIR is not mandatory)
  11. Rajamma H Vs Thimmaiah V on 09 Jun 2022 (KarHC: Dispose DVC within 2 weeks)
  12. Mrugesh Wasnik Vs Shweta Mrugesh on 22 Jun 2022 (BomHC: Dispose DVC within 3 months)
  13. P Parvathi Vs Pathloth Mangamma on 7 Jul 2022 (TelHC: Directions issued regd appearance of respondents)
  14. Naresh Kumar Yalla Vs State of Telangana on 21 Jul 2022 (TelHC: Dispose DVC in 1 month)
  15. Altaf Ahmad Zargar and Anr Vs Sana Alias Ruksana and Anr on 02 Sep 2022 (JKHC: After WS, Magistrate may dismiss the DVC and cancel any interim orders passed)
  16. Sandeep Pamarati Vs State of AP and Anr on 29 Sep 2022 (APHC: My Own case: Disposal of DVC in 60 days)

 


MASTER SITEMAP here.

Posted in Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications | Tagged Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to No Shared Household Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 PWDV Act Sec 12 - Not Made Out Summary Post

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

  • State of Maharashtra Vs Dnyaneshwar Laxman Rao Wankhede on 29 Jul 2009 January 26, 2023
  • Sabiya Begum Malka Vs State of U.P. and Ors on 18 May 2016 January 24, 2023
  • Y.Narasimha Rao and Ors Vs Y.Venkata Lakshmi and Anr on 9 Jul 1991 January 19, 2023
  • Messers S.J.S. Business Enterprises Vs State of Bihar and Ors on 17 Mar 2004 January 17, 2023
  • Ramjas Foundation and Ors vs Union of India and Ors on 9 Nov 2010 January 17, 2023

Most Read Posts

  • Do you know that there is time limit of 60 days to dispose of a Domestic Violence case in India under sec 12(5) of PWDV Act? (9,081 views)
  • XXX Vs State of Kerala and Ors on 05 July 2022 (2,819 views)
  • Ratandeep Singh Ahuja Vs Harpreet Kaur on 11 Oct 2022 (877 views)
  • State Bank of India and Anr Vs Ajay Kumar Sood on 16 Aug 2022 (853 views)
  • Abbas Hatimbhai Kagalwala Vs The State of Maharashtra and Anr on 23 Aug 2022 (826 views)
  • Bar Council of India Vs Bonnie Foi Law College and Ors (718 views)
  • P Parvathi Vs Pathloth Mangamma on 7 Jul 2022 (678 views)
  • Sandeep Pamarati Vs State of AP and Anr on 29 Sep 2022 (Disposal of DVC in 60 days) (678 views)
  • Mukesh Singh versus State of Uttar Pradesh on 30 Sep 2022 (590 views)
  • Joginder Singh Vs Rajwinder Kaur on 29 Oct 2022 (560 views)

Tags

Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes (323)Reportable Judgement or Order (319)Landmark Case (310)2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision (259)Work-In-Progress Article (218)Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to (210)1-Judge Bench Decision (145)Sandeep Pamarati (88)3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision (79)Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty (74)Perjury Under 340 CrPC (53)Issued or Recommended Guidelines or Directions or Protocols to be followed (52)Absurd Or After Thought Or Baseless Or False Or General Or Inherently Improbable Or Improved Or UnSpecific Or Omnibus Or Vague Allegations (51)Reprimands or Setbacks to YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh (49)Summary Post (46)CrPC 482 - Quash (38)Not Authentic copy hence to be replaced (34)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 (629)Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments (297)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)General Study Material (55)High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification (53)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) (40)High Court of Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification (39)District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification (38)High Court of Kerala Judgment or Order or Notification (30)High Court of Gujarat Judgment or Order or Notification (25)High Court of Madhya Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (25)High Court of Calcutta Judgment or Order or Notification (18)High Court of Patna Judgment or Order or Notification (17)

Recent Comments

  • ShadesOfKnife on Beena MS Vs Shino G Babu on 04 Feb 2022
  • Vincent on Beena MS Vs Shino G Babu on 04 Feb 2022
  • ShadesOfKnife on Syed Nazim Husain Vs Additional Principal Judge Family Court & Anr on 9 January, 2003
  • Ravi on Syed Nazim Husain Vs Additional Principal Judge Family Court & Anr on 9 January, 2003
  • ShadesOfKnife on Beena MS Vs Shino G Babu on 04 Feb 2022

Archives of SoK

  • 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 (35)
  • 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

  • Maintenance impacting SSL API availability and certificate issuance February 14, 2023
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Feb 14, 14:00 - 16:00 UTCJan 26, 10:38 UTCScheduled - On February 14th, 2023, Cloudflare will be doing database maintenance that will impact SSL API availability and may result in certificate issuance delays. The scheduled maintenance will be on February 14, 2023, 14:00 - 16:00 UTC.During the maintenance window, SSL-related […]
  • FRA (Frankfurt) on 2023-02-07 February 7, 2023
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Feb 7, 01:30 - 03:30 UTCFeb 2, 06:40 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in FRA (Frankfurt) datacenter on 2023-02-07 between 01:30 and 03:30 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 […]
  • ICN (Seoul) on 2023-02-06 February 6, 2023
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Feb 6, 17:00 - 23:00 UTCFeb 1, 06:20 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in ICN (Seoul) datacenter on 2023-02-06 between 17:00 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 […]

RSS List of Spam Server IPs from Project Honeypot

  • 192.142.21.117 | S February 1, 2023
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 408 | First: 2023-01-11 | Last: 2023-02-01
  • 192.142.21.82 | S February 1, 2023
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 212 | First: 2023-01-11 | Last: 2023-02-01
  • 103.20.11.159 | SD February 1, 2023
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 4,199 | First: 2017-01-12 | Last: 2023-02-01
Proudly powered by WordPress
Theme: Flint by Star Verte LLC

Bad Behavior has blocked 455 access attempts in the last 7 days.

pixel