Rani Bibi Vs Sk Nurullah and Ors on 8 Dec 2025 – Judgement Summary

Posted on April 8 by Suprajaa Rajan

In Rani Bibi vs Sk. Nurullah & Ors. (2026), the Calcutta High Court dealt with a crucial issue concerning territorial jurisdiction under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and the maintainability of a petition under Section 482 CrPC [Section 528 BNSS].

The petitioner-wife, after being allegedly subjected to cruelty and dowry harassment, shifted to a rented accommodation in Kolkata and initiated proceedings under Section 12 of the DV Act. While the Magistrate upheld jurisdiction, the appellate court reversed the decision, directing return of the application for lack of territorial jurisdiction.

“25. Since in the instant case, the question which has been dealt herein by the court below as to the maintainability of the Application under section 12 of the D.V. Act before the said Trial court is on the ground of territoriality principle of jurisdiction, I am of the firm view that the order impugned attracts the second part of section 482 of the Cr.P.C. and therefore instant application under section 482 of the Code against the impugned order is maintainable.”
“29. In the light of said judgment the temporary residence as envisaged under the Act is such residence where an aggrieved person compelled to take shelter in view of domestic violence perpetrated on her or she either been turned out of the matrimonial home or has to leave the matrimonial home. Of course the temporary residence does not include residence in a lodge or hotel or an inn or residence at a place only for the purpose of filing a domestic violence case, but the temporary residence must also be a continuing residence from the date of acquiring residence till the Application under section 12 disposed of and it must not be a fleeing residence where a woman comes only for the purpose of contesting the case and otherwise does not reside there.”
“30. In the instant case the document which has been relied by the petitioner and also considering the fact that the petitioner had received court notices from the Taltala Address it does not indicate that it is not her continuing residence nor there is anything to suggest that the petitioner comes to that residence only for the purpose of contesting the said cases and otherwise does not reside therein.”
“34. “Economic abuse” interalia includes deprivation of financial or economic resources to which an aggrieved person is entitled to under the law or custom and such claim is a continuing one which continues from day to day. It is settled law that continuity of joint residence in a shared house hold or domestic relationship inter se is not a sine qua non for the perpetration of domestic violence to an aggrieved person in the form “economic abuse” under the Act.”

Decision

The Court, after detailed analysis, thus, held that:

A woman can initiate DV proceedings where she temporarily resides.
Temporary residence must be genuine and not merely a “fleeting” arrangement.
Economic abuse constitutes a continuing cause of action, thereby conferring jurisdiction.

Therefore, the High Court set aside the appellate court’s order and restored the Magistrate’s decision.

Rani Bibi Vs Sk Nurullah and Ors on 8 Dec 2025

Citation : 2026:CHC-AS:289

Other Sources :

Index of Domestic Violence judgements is here.

Related Legal Concepts

Inherent powers of High Court
Temporary vs Permanent Residence
Economic Abuse under DV Act
Maintainability of Criminal Revision
Abuse of Process of Law

Key Contributor :
Mrs. Suprajaa Rajan B.Com., LL.B., LL.M.
+91-9606345150

Vikaramjeet Rana Vs The State of NCT of Delhi and Anr on 6 Nov 2025 – Judgment Summary

Posted on March 24 by Suprajaa Rajan

The Delhi High Court held that interim rent maintenance under the DV Act cannot continue after the wife acquires her own residence.

The Court observed that the purpose of rent is to provide immediate shelter. Once the wife purchases a house, that need ends. Therefore, continuation of rent becomes unjust enrichment.Further, the Court recognised that change in circumstances under Section 25 DV Act (now read with BNSS framework) permits modification of earlier orders.

Accordingly, the Court set aside the order allowing adjustment of rent towards EMI payments.

The following paragraphs form the core reasoning of the decision:

“26. It needs no reiteration that the Domestic Violence Act had been enacted with the intention of providing immediate relief and support to a wife who has been subjected to domestic violence. The legislative intent behind the D.V. Act is to provide succour to women who are financially vulnerable and subjected to domestic violence. However, the said provision cannot be stretched to benefit a woman who is financially independent and capable of maintaining herself.”
“29. No doubt, the Interim Order directed payment of Rent of Rs.20,000/- per month. However, here is a situation when the Petitioner is claiming change of circumstances and thus, modification of this Order in terms of Section 25(2) D.V. Act which provides that in case of change of circumstances the Order may be recalled, modified or altered.”
“30. In the present case, indeed there is a change in circumstance as a flat has been admittedly acquired by Respondent No.2. The question is whether she should now continue to get Rs.20,000/- per month towards Rent.”
“31. As already noted, the purpose of granting maintenance under the D.V. Act was to provide the Respondent with alternate accommodation. However, she having acquired a flat in Hauz Khas, Delhi, she cannot be held to be in need of immediate shelter. Therefore, it would not be appropriate, fair, or just to direct that the maintenance of Rs.20,000/- per month be continued, as has been rightly argued by the Petitioner. Once a flat has been acquired by the Respondent, there remains no justification to direct continuation of payment of Rs.20,000/- per month by the Petitioner.”
“32. The very substratum upon which the maintenance was granted, has ceased to exist with the acquisition of the property. To permit the continuation of such payment, would be to allow the Respondent undue benefit, which is contrary to the purpose of interim relief under the D.V. Act.”

Decision

The Court thus allowed the revision petition. It set aside the order that permitted rent adjustment towards EMI payments. It held that rent maintenance cannot continue after property acquisition.

The Court directed that payment of ₹20,000 per month shall stop from May 2024.

Vikaramjeet Rana Vs The State of NCT of Delhi and Anr on 6 Nov 2025

Index of Maintenance Judgments under Hindu Marriage Act is here.

Citation : 2025:DHC:9719

Other Sources :

Related Legal Concepts

Interim Maintenance under DV act
Change in circumstances in maintenance law
Rent Vs EMI-legal distinction
Purpose of Interim Relief in DV Act

Key Contributor :

Mrs. Suprajaa Rajan B.Com., LL.B., LL.M.

+91-9606345150

False Domestic Violence Allegations – Legal Defence Strategy in India (A complete guide)

Posted on March 9 by Suprajaa Rajan

False allegations of domestic violence can have serious legal, social, and professional consequences. While the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 was enacted to protect women from genuine abuse, courts have also acknowledged that misuse of legal provisions may occur in certain cases.

Therefore, when a person faces false or exaggerated domestic violence allegations, it becomes crucial to adopt a structured legal defence strategy. A well-planned approach can help demonstrate the truth, challenge unsupported allegations, and protect the rights of the accused.

This article explains the legal framework governing domestic violence cases in India and the practical defence strategies that can be used when allegations are false or misleading.

Understanding Domestic Violence Law in India

The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 provides civil remedies to women who experience abuse within a domestic relationship. The law allows courts to grant several types of relief, including:

Protection orders
Residence orders
Monetary relief (maintenance)
Compensation orders
Custody orders for children

Proceedings under the Act are usually conducted before a Magistrate Court and are meant to provide quick protection and relief to the aggrieved person.

However, because the law is broad in scope, allegations are sometimes exaggerated or unsupported by evidence. In such cases, the respondent must present a strong factual and legal defence.

Common Situations Where False Allegations Arise

False domestic violence allegations often emerge in the context of ongoing matrimonial disputes. For instance, such complaints may arise during:

Divorce proceedings
Maintenance disputes
Property conflicts between spouses
Child custody battles

In some situations, the complaint is filed as a litigation strategy to gain leverage in matrimonial negotiations. However, courts generally examine the credibility of allegations and the supporting evidence before granting relief.

Step 1: Carefully Examine the Domestic Violence Complaint

The first step in defending a false case is to analyse the complaint in detail.

Important aspects to examine include:

Specific allegations made against the respondent
Dates and locations of alleged incidents
Whether the allegations are vague or inconsistent
Whether other family members are unnecessarily implicated

Often, false complaints contain generalised accusations without specific details, which can be challenged before the court.

Step 2: Gather Documentary and Electronic Evidence

Evidence plays a critical role in defending domestic violence allegations. Therefore, the respondent should collect all relevant documentation that may contradict the claims.

Useful evidence may include:

Messages, emails, and call records
Photographs or videos
Travel records showing absence from the alleged location
Financial documents
Medical records

Such evidence can demonstrate that the alleged incidents did not occur or were misrepresented.

Step 3: Identify Contradictions in the Allegations

In many false cases, the complaint may contain inconsistent statements or factual contradictions.

For example:

Conflicting timelines of alleged incidents
Claims that contradict documentary evidence
Statements that differ from earlier complaints or legal pleadings

During cross-examination, highlighting these inconsistencies can significantly weaken the credibility of the allegations.

Step 4: Demonstrate the True Nature of the Relationship

Another important defence strategy is to present the actual circumstances of the marital relationship.

This may involve demonstrating:

Peaceful interactions between the spouses
Continued communication after the alleged incidents
Social or family events attended together

Such evidence can indicate that the relationship did not reflect the pattern of abuse alleged in the complaint.

Step 5: Challenge Monetary Relief or Maintenance Claims

Domestic violence complaints frequently include requests for monetary relief or maintenance.

However, courts consider:

The financial capacity of both parties
Existing maintenance orders in other proceedings
The actual needs of the claimant

Guidelines laid down in Rajnesh v. Neha require both parties to disclose income, assets, and liabilities to prevent exaggerated financial claims.

Step 6: Seek Discharge or Dismissal Where Appropriate

If the allegations are clearly baseless, the respondent may request the court to dismiss the complaint or drop certain respondents.

Courts often discharge family members who are falsely implicated without specific allegations.

Additionally, higher courts have repeatedly cautioned against the mechanical implication of multiple relatives in matrimonial disputes.

Step 7: Approach Higher Courts for Relief

In cases where the complaint is clearly malicious or legally unsustainable, the respondent may approach the High Court for relief.

Under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure – High Courts possess the authority to quash proceedings that amount to abuse of the legal process.

However, this remedy is generally used only when the allegations do not disclose any offence even if accepted at face value.

Importance of Legal Representation

Domestic violence cases often involve complex factual disputes and emotional allegations. Therefore, it is essential to obtain competent legal representation.

An experienced lawyer can:

Analyse the complaint strategically
Identify weak points in the allegations
Present documentary evidence effectively
Conduct cross-examination to expose inconsistencies

Professional legal assistance ensures that the defence is structured, credible, and legally sound.

Judicial Approach Toward Misuse of Matrimonial Laws

Indian courts have acknowledged concerns about misuse of certain matrimonial provisions. In the landmark case of Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar,
the Supreme Court emphasised the need to prevent unnecessary arrests in matrimonial disputes.

Such judicial observations highlight the importance of balancing the protection of genuine victims with safeguards against misuse of the law.

Conclusion

False domestic violence allegations can place an individual under significant legal and personal pressure. Nevertheless, courts rely heavily on evidence, consistency of statements, and factual credibility when evaluating such complaints.

Therefore, an effective defence strategy should focus on:

Careful examination of allegations
Strong documentary and electronic evidence
Identification of inconsistencies in the complaint
Demonstrating the true nature of the marital relationship

By presenting a clear, evidence-based defence, respondents can ensure that courts arrive at a fair and balanced decision based on facts rather than unverified allegations.

Index of Legal Strategies and Defence is here.

Key Contributor :

Mrs. Suprajaa Rajan B.Com., LL.B., LL.M.

+91-9606345150

Matrimonial Criminal Litigation – The Complete Prosecution Strategy Guide

Posted on March 5 by Suprajaa Rajan

A structured guide explaining how matrimonial criminal cases are initiated, investigated, and prosecuted under Indian criminal law.

Matrimonial disputes often escalate into criminal litigation involving allegations of cruelty, dowry harassment, domestic violence, or financial neglect. Consequently, effective prosecution requires not only filing complaints but also building a coherent legal strategy supported by documentary and oral evidence.

This playbook outlines the procedural roadmap, legal remedies, and strategic considerations available to the prosecution side in matrimonial criminal litigation. Furthermore, it highlights how complainants can navigate investigations, bail proceedings, trial stages, and post-judgment remedies effectively.

I. Initiating Criminal Proceedings

At the outset, the prosecution must ensure that allegations are clearly articulated and supported by preliminary material. Therefore, initiating proceedings correctly becomes crucial.

1. Filing a Complaint or FIR

A criminal case may be initiated through:

Registration of an FIR under Section 498A IPC
Complaint for criminal breach of trust under Section 406 IPC
Filing a Domestic Violence complaint under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
Maintenance proceedings under Section 125 CrPC

These provisions collectively aim to address cruelty, financial neglect, and unlawful retention of dowry articles.

However, the complainant must ensure that the complaint contains:

Specific incidents of cruelty
Dates and locations of harassment
Details of dowry demands
Names and roles of accused persons

Without these particulars, the prosecution case may appear vague during investigation or trial.

II. Investigation Stage: Strengthening the Prosecution Case

Once an FIR is registered, the matter enters the investigation phase. At this stage, the complainant should actively assist the investigating authorities.

1. Providing Documentary Evidence

The prosecution should gather and submit:

Marriage photographs and invitations
Bank transfers or financial transactions
Medical records of injuries
WhatsApp chats, emails, or messages
Audio or video recordings (where available)

Consequently, documentary evidence often plays a decisive role in corroborating allegations.

2. Witness Statements

Additionally, statements of the following witnesses may support the prosecution case:

Parents and relatives
Neighbours
Friends aware of the dispute
Independent witnesses present during incidents

Strong witness testimony strengthens the prosecution narrative during trial.

III. Responding to Bail Proceedings

In many matrimonial criminal cases, the accused may seek anticipatory bail or regular bail. Accordingly, the prosecution must present strong objections.

1. Opposing Anticipatory Bail

While opposing bail under Section 438 CrPC, the complainant may argue:

Seriousness of allegations
Continuous harassment or cruelty
Risk of intimidation of witnesses
Possibility of evidence tampering

Furthermore, the prosecution may highlight the need for custodial interrogation if recovery of dowry articles is required.

2. Conditions on Bail

Even when bail is granted, the prosecution can request conditions such as:

No contact with the complainant
Regular cooperation with investigation
Restrictions on leaving jurisdiction

These conditions help protect the complainant during ongoing proceedings.

IV. Parallel Civil and Criminal Remedies

Matrimonial litigation often involves multiple simultaneous proceedings. Therefore, the prosecution side may pursue parallel remedies.

1. Domestic Violence Proceedings

Under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the complainant may seek:

Protection orders
Residence orders
Monetary relief
Compensation for mental cruelty

These remedies provide immediate relief even before completion of criminal trials.

2. Maintenance Claims

Additionally, financial support can be sought through:

Section 125 CrPC
Interim maintenance in domestic violence proceedings
Maintenance under personal laws

Maintenance proceedings ensure financial security for the complainant and dependents.

V. Chargesheet and Trial Strategy

After investigation, the police may file a chargesheet before the Magistrate. At this stage, the prosecution strategy shifts toward trial preparation.

1. Ensuring Proper Framing of Charges

The prosecution must ensure that charges are framed appropriately under relevant provisions, including:

Section 498A IPC
Section 406 IPC
Other applicable offences based on evidence

Clear framing of charges defines the scope of the trial.

2. Examination of Witnesses

During trial, the prosecution must:

Present witnesses in logical sequence
Ensure consistency in statements
Address contradictions promptly

Effective witness examination significantly influences the outcome of the case.

3. Documentary Evidence

Moreover, documentary evidence must be properly marked and proved during trial.

Failure to prove documents may weaken the prosecution case even if the allegations are otherwise serious.

VI. Settlement and Mediation

Although matrimonial criminal cases are serious in nature, courts sometimes encourage mediation or settlement, particularly when reconciliation or mutual divorce is possible.

In such circumstances, the parties may enter into:

Compromise agreements
Mutual consent divorce settlements
Withdrawal or quashing of proceedings before the High Court

However, the complainant must ensure that financial settlements and legal protections are clearly documented before agreeing to any compromise.

VII. Post-Trial Remedies

After the trial concludes, the prosecution may still have legal remedies depending on the outcome.

1. Appeal Against Acquittal

If the accused is acquitted, the complainant may seek appeal against acquittal before the appropriate appellate court.

2. Enforcement of Compensation Orders

Courts may also grant compensation under criminal law provisions. Consequently, the complainant may initiate execution proceedings to enforce such orders.

3. Enforcement of Maintenance Orders

Maintenance orders can be enforced through:

Execution proceedings
Recovery warrants
Attachment of salary or property

These remedies ensure compliance with court directions.

VIII. Strategic Considerations for the Prosecution

To ensure a strong prosecution case, the complainant should follow certain strategic principles.

First, allegations must remain consistent across FIRs, complaints, and witness statements. Secondly, documentary evidence should be preserved from the earliest stage of the dispute.

Furthermore, complainants should avoid exaggeration or inclusion of unrelated family members without evidence, as courts increasingly scrutinize such allegations.

Ultimately, a well-structured prosecution case depends on credible evidence, procedural compliance, and effective presentation before the court.

Conclusion

Matrimonial criminal litigation requires careful navigation of criminal procedure, evidentiary rules, and parallel civil remedies. Therefore, the prosecution side must adopt a structured legal strategy from the very beginning.

By documenting incidents, cooperating with investigators, and presenting consistent evidence, complainants can significantly strengthen their case.

In conclusion, the prosecution playbook in matrimonial litigation is not merely about initiating proceedings. Rather, it involves systematic preparation, strategic litigation, and effective utilisation of statutory remedies available under Indian law.

Index of Legal Strategies and Defence is here.

Key Contributor :

Mrs. Suprajaa Rajan B.Com., LL.B., LL.M.

+91-9606345150

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?

Posted on August 20, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

Legislature set a time limit of 60 days for a Domestic Violence case to be disposed as prescribed under sec 12(5) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Here are the Rules made under this Act. But the ground reality is totally different. And I decided to address this issue. Head-on.

NOTE: Since too much thought was going into decide if this matter has to dealt as a WP or a WP(PIL), I decided to do BOTH. First a WP/CrlP, for my individual case and then a WP(PIL) for public benefit.

RESULTS:

Won the individual battle here…
Won the PIL battle too despite it getting dismissed by the Honourables. Read further down this page.

Go here for other cases I dealt with personally…

Law in question (as it stands today):

12. Application to Magistrate.—
(1) An aggrieved person or a Protection Officer or any other person on behalf of the aggrieved person may present an application to the Magistrate seeking one or more reliefs under this Act:
Provided that before passing any order on such application, the Magistrate shall take into consideration any domestic incident report received by him from the Protection Officer or the service provider.
(2) xxxxx
(3) xxxxx
(4) xxxxx
(5) The Magistrate shall Endeavour to dispose of every application made under sub-section (1) within a period of sixty days from the date of its first hearing.

Support/Inspiration from some High Courts:

Andhra Pradesh High Court: https://www.shadesofknife.in/naresh-kumar-yalla-vs-state-of-telangana-on-21-jul-2022/
Karnataka High Court: https://www.shadesofknife.in/rajamma-h-vs-thimmaiah-v-on-09-jun-2022/
Telangana High Court: https://www.shadesofknife.in/p-parvathi-vs-pathloth-mangamma-on-7-jul-2022/ [Guidelines passed]
To-do: Find more useful judgments
To-do: Contact Chairpersons of State Women Commissions of various States and ask for timely implementation of DV Act.
To-do: Find oldest ‘pending’ DVC cases in each of the 13 districts of AP, to emphasize the traversity.

Current Status in AP:

Action Taken:

Filed RTI to all 13 District Judge Court Complexes in Andhra Pradesh seeking number of cases closed within 60 working days as prescribed u/s 12(5). If no cases disposed off in 3 years, strike down Sec 12(5) from the Act.

On 2022-06-28:

Sent Reg Posts to all 13 District Judge Courts in AP, asking for information on

how many DV cases were filed in 2019, 2020 and 2021 in their jurisdictional district,
how may were disposed in 2019, 2020 and 2021 in their jurisdictional district, and
how many were disposed within 60 days, in 2019, 2020 and 2021 in their jurisdictional district.

They have 30 days time to reply to me. Will file the PIL in August.

As expected the DV cases closed within statutory 60 days is abysmally low.

Parties:

Petitioner-in-person: Sandeep Pamarati
Respondents: From High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Union of India and State of Andhra Pradesh

1. High Court of Andhra Pradesh, Represented by the Registrar General
  AP High Court Buildings,
  Nelapadu, Amaravathi,
  Guntur District, Andhra Pradesh
  PIN: 522202
2. Union of India, Represented by its Secretary,
  Ministry of Law and Justice, Dept. of Legal Affairs,
  A Wing, 4th Floor, Shastri Bhawan,
  Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi, 110001
3. Union of India, Represented by its Secretary,
  Ministry of Parliamentary Affairs
  Shastri Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road,
  New Delhi, 110001
4. Union of India, Represented by its Secretary,
  Ministry of Women and Child Development
  Shastri Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road,
  New Delhi, 110001
5. Union of India, Represented by its Secretary,
  Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment
  Shastri Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road,
  New Delhi, 110001
6. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
  Home Department, AP Secretariat,
  Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District, 522503
7. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by Secretary to Government,
  Law (Legislative Affairs and Justice) Department, AP Secretariat,
  Velagapudi, Amaravathi, Guntur District, 522503
8. State of Andhra Pradesh, Rep. by its Principal Secretary,
  Department of Women Development & Child Welfare
  Office of Special Commissioner, 4th Floor Jampani Towers,
  Lodge Centre, Amaravathi Road, Guntur-522006
9. National Commission for Women, Rep by Chairperson
  Plot No 21, FC33, Institutional Area,
  Jasola, New Delhi, Delhi 110025
10. Andhra Pradesh State Commission for Women, Rep by Chairperson
  Flat No. 506, 4th Floor, MGM Capital Building, Dr. YSR Arogya Sri Complex,
  Chinakakani, Mangalagiri, Guntur. Pin : 522503
11. National Judicial Academy, Rep by The Director,
  Bhadbhada Road, Suraj Nagar PO,
  Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh 462044
12. A.P. Judicial Academy, Rep by The Director,
  Gandhi Nagar, Nehru Nagar Colony, West Marredpally,
  Secunderabad, Telangana 500026
13. Law Commission of India, Rep by The Member Secretary,
  Lok Nayak Bhavan, ‘B’ Wing, 2nd & 4th Floor,
  Khan Market, New Delhi -110003
14. Bar Council of India, Rep by the Secretary,
  21, Rouse Avenue, Institutional Area,
  New Delhi Pin Code – 110002
15. Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh, Rep by The Secretary
  Ground Floor, A.P. High Court Building,
  Nelapadu, Amaravati, Guntur, Andhra Pradesh
  PIN: 522 239

Remedy:

File a writ u/Act 226 read with Art 227 seeking direction from High Court of AP to all the Trial Courts in the State which deal with Domestic Violence cases, to mandatorily invoke the time limit of 60 days to dispose of a DV case, as prescribed under sec 12(5), whenever an application for interim reliefs, under sec 23(1), was prayed/sought for also in the spirit of Sec 309 CrPC.

Dilemma: To file WP or WP(PIL)? Why not, both?

Drafting: WP Done in the form of CrlP r/w Art 226 and 227 here. WP(PIL) is pending (u/Art 226 and 227)

Reliefs:

Call for records for the DV cases are disposed in 60 days from Srikakulam, Visakhapatnam, Guntur, Chittoor, West Godavari, Kadapa, Krishna Districts as they did not give data to RTI applications.
Acknowledge the total failure of the implementation of Statutory Compliance of Sec 12(5) of PWDV Act.
Appoint an amicus/LCI to study reasons for this failure in State of AP.
Direct all District Unit Heads to ensure the DV cases are disposed in 60 days (To tackle such scenarios, you can use the Supreme Court judgment to force the Trial judge to come up with case calendar for the entire case, which is available here)
Setup a periodic monitoring mechanism to report the delays in DV case disposal publicly on AP High Court website.

Supporting Case laws:

Mewa Singh and others Vs Sukhjeet Kaur on 29 April 2013 (PHHC: appearance of respondents disposed off)
Ayishabi Vs Shahul Hameed on 16 July, 2014 (KerHC: Dispose within 3 months)
Kuppusamy Vs Radhika on 21 July, 2017 (MadHC: Dispose DVC in 2 months)
Sushila Devi Vs Vikas Kumar Singhal And Ors on 9 Feb 2018 (RajHC: Dispose within 2 months)
Tillottama Kumari Vs State of Bihar and Ors on 16 May 2019 (PatHC: Dispose DVC in 6 weeks)
Maya and Ors Vs State of U.P. and Ors on 19 Mar 2021 (AllHC: Dispose DVC in 2 months)
Suyalaly and Anr Vs Alphin Jeyasingh and Ors on 29 Nov 2021 (MadHC: Dispose within 2 months)
Vani Santhosh Babu Vs Vijaya Laxmi Vani on 3 Mar 2022 (TelHC: Dispose in 60 days)
Rajamma H Vs Thimmaiah V on 09 Jun 2022 (KarHC: Dispose DVC within 2 weeks)
Mrugesh Wasnik Vs Shweta Mrugesh on 22 Jun 2022 (BomHC: Dispose DVC within 3 months)
P Parvathi Vs Pathloth Mangamma on 7 Jul 2022 (TelHC: Directions issued regd appearance of respondents)
Naresh Kumar Yalla Vs State of Telangana on 21 Jul 2022 (TelHC: Dispose DVC in 1 month)
Sandeep Pamarati Vs State of AP and Anr on 29 Sep 2022 (APHC: Disposal of DVC in 60 days/3 months (around 20 working days in a month); my first win AP HC!)

Writ Public Interest Petition:

Filed this PIL [WP(PIL)/182/2022] in Oct 2022 but got listed on 14 Nov 2022 before Court-1 of AP HC. Prepared well to argue the matter and hoped to get notices issued to 15 respondents on the petition. But the ;category (For Orders of Court) under which this cases was listed’ and ‘no final WP number given’ made it clear to me that this will be dismissed.

Case status:

I went to podium and began with intro as PIP and then informed there is no personal interest in this PIL and how. That’s all… It was dismissed as not maintainable. Not sure what legal reasons were mentioned in the dismissal order. CJ said, tomorrow I will come with a petition to early dispose another kind of case type. I don’t think this is a legal reason.

Here is the Writ Petition Copy:

2022-10-11 WP(PIL) against APHC and 14 Ors v0.1

Here is the dismissal order.

Sandeep Pamarati Vs High Court of AP and 14 Ors on 14 Nov 2022

Interesting update…

Just after a week from date of the dismissal of my WP-PIL, the following Circular gets issued by AP HC in Nov 2022. Interesting, because earlier circular, issued in Oct 2022, did NOT have a deadline!!! Seems my now-dismissed-PIL is working it’s magic.

2022-Oct-20 Circular:

2022-10-20 CIR_ROC559-20.10.22 Directions for endeavoring to enhance the disposals

…. and then…

2022-Nov-23 Circular:

OPCELL-ROC560-23.11.22

—

The following is the circular forwarded to Anantapur District Judiciary.

2022-11-23 Clearance of Old Cases (ALL those cases instituted prior to 2018)

I AM HAPPY AND SMILING.

MASTER LIST here.

Sewa Singh Vs Surjit Kaur on 14 Feb 2012

Posted on October 5, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Interrogatories are allowed in the DV cases and they are independent of Written Statement/Counter filing. Such Interrogatories have to be disposed off in 7 days from filing.

The observations made by the learned trial Judge appear to be stringent and contrary to the provisions of CPC, as in view of the amendment of CPC w.e.f. July 1, 2002, it is mandatory for a Court to decide an application forleave to deliver interrogatories within a period of seven days from the date of filing of the said application. There is no provision warranting that stay could be granted merely for non-filing of the written statement.

And then…

After considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the defendant- petitioner wants to delay the filing of written statement on the pretext that an application for interrogatories under Order 11 Rule 4 CPC has been submitted before the trial Court. I have gone through the interrogatories. The interrogatories only seek to get a reply from the plaintiff- wife pertaining to an earlier application having been filed by her under the Domestic Violence Act, she being owner of properties mentioned in para Nos. 2 to 5 of the interrogatories. There is nothing mentioned in the interrogatories which could create an obstacle in fling of the written statement. Defendant- petitioner can conveniently take up a plea regarding plaintiff- respondent being owner of particular property disentitling her to any relief under Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act while contesting her claim of permanent injunction. Besides this, obligation to file written statement is not subject to the adjudication of the application for interrogatories. There is an independent obligation on the part of the Court to decide the interrogatories within a period of seven days as per provisions of Order 11 Rule 2 CPC.

Sewa Singh Vs Surjit Kaur on 14 Feb 2012

Other sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/94382253/

Rooplal and Ors Vs Manpreet Kaur on 05 November, 2019

Posted on December 20, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

Justice Fateh Deep Singh ji has begun his judgment with this,

The surmounting rise in the number of petitions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. challenging the processes being initiated by various Courts under the jurisdiction of this High Court for the matters dealing with the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (in short, ‘the Act’) and the subdued clamour that the provisions are discriminatory qua males and lopsided acknowledging of the rights of women vis-à-vis their men folk has led to the amalgamation and clubbing of all these petitions with an effort to clear the air and haze which has engulfed the interpretation of provisions of this Act since its inception and otherwise brings about more uncertainty and confusion.
In India though there existed laws to protect women from perpetrators of violence, in fact even the legal experts felt their inadequacy in dealing with the ever bourgeoning problem of domestic violence and which phenomenon was not being adequately dealt with. One cannot look the other way that even with the coming into force of the Act it has failed to cater to the needs of abuse of male child in the house though subsequently with the enlargement of definition of ‘Rape’ it has been addressed to some extent but not completely.
This legislation has remained in oblivion and indifferent to the Domestic Violence instances concerning men in domestic relationship and thus falls short of constitutional obligation as enshrined under Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution and violates Legal Egalitarianism as well as Article 7 of Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
Being one in such a sphere, the Act has tried to concretely deal with the problems of domestic violence from feminist perspective of law for expeditious redressal of grievance irrespective of the economic, religious and ethnic affiliations of the women.
“Next to God we are indebted to women, first for life itself, and then for making it worth living” – Bovee C.N.
Epigrammatic writer of New York who lived in the 19th century and happens to be one of the members of Literary Circle popularly called “Saturday Evening Club of Boston” has penned these famous indelible lines as a tribute to the female form of homosapiens.
Our Constitution while introducing Gandhian Socialism, Secularism did keep in mind the concept of “Equality” and which became the basic feature of the Constitution and too was acknowledged by the Supreme Court of India in ‘Indra Sawhney vs. Union of India’ (2000) 1 SCC 168. In league with thoughts of great thinkers, the Constituent Assembly introduced Articles 21, 14 and 15, the latter as a special tribute to women and eliminating gender based discrimination. In spite of the same, a debate over the Equality is getting complicated. Since women are often misnomered as ‘Weaker Sex’ and therefore in under-developed countries including developing nations like ours, there is still huge gap in Gender Equality, more dominant in Rural than Urban scenario. The approaches in gender difference broadly fall in protectionist, sameness and compensatory outlook. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights had voiced its concern against discrimination and holding out that all human beings are born free with equal rights and dignity and thus, are all entitled to equal treatment. It was stressed to ensure equal rights to men and women. That is how Declaration on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women came into being and it is with this end in view United Nations resolved the member States to adopt appropriate legislation.

Now the main point starts,

The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is one of the most aggressive approach while enacting such a progressive Act which is enacted in favour of women’s rights. Though a challenge was made it being ultra-vires of the Constitution but the Delhi High Court in 2008 in ‘Aruna Parmod Shah vs. Union of India’ 2008 (3) RCR(Criminal) 191 brushed aside the stand that it was discriminatory to men as protection was afforded only to women. However, it cannot be ignored that less out of social need and more out of political compulsions, multiple Laws are being evolved which are lopsided heavily weighing in favour of women offering them multiple remedies for the same very grievance and for which the present Act is one. In spite of Article 15 of Part IV of ‘Convention on the Elimination of All forms of Discrimination against Women’ which came in force with effect from 3rd September, 1981 had resolved that all State parties shall accord to women equality with men before the law but it is not so in realm.

[pdf-embedder url=”https://www.shadesofknife.in/wp-content/uploads/2019/12/Rooplal-and-Ors-Vs-Manpreet-Kaur-on-05-November-2019.pdf” title=”Rooplal and Ors Vs Manpreet Kaur on 05 November, 2019″]

Citations:

Indiankanoon.org or Casemine link:

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

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

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

2001-2005

MS. Bhaskar Industries Ltd Vs MS. Bhiwani Denim and Apparels Ltd and Ors on 27 August 2001 [SC: Not a DV case but talks about Interlocutory Order]

2006-2010

Lata Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another on 7 July, 2006 (Right to Marry a person of one’s choice)
S.R. Batra and Anr Vs Taruna Batra on 15 December, 2006 (Supreme Court defined ‘Shared Household‘)
Samar Ghosh vs Jaya Ghosh on 26 March, 2007 (Mental Cruelty defined)
Abhijit Bhikaseth Auti Vs State Of Maharashtra and Anr on 16 September, 2008 [BomHC: Before granting an interim relief under sub-section 1, an opportunity of being heard is required to be granted to the respondent.]
V.K.Vijayalekshmi Amma Vs Bindu V on 2 Dec 2009 ()
Krishnamurthy Nookula Vs Savitha Y on 9 December, 2009 [KarHC: Audi Alterum Partem, Magistrate must conduct Inquiry in the nature of summary trial before Interim Maintenance]
Vijay Verma Vs State NCT of Delhi and Anr on 13 August, 2010 (Delhi High Court)
Jovita Olga Ignesia Mascarenhase Coutinho Vs Rajan Maria Coutinho and Anr on 24 Aug 2010 (BHC: Frame Issues after Hearing Both Parties)
Rachna Kathuria Vs Ramesh Kathuria on 30 August, 2010 (DelHC: From my favorite judge but bad judgment; deny maintenance in DVC as there was maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC)
Hemlataben Maheshbhai Chauhan Vs State of Gujarat on 21 October, 2010 [GujHC: Since wife was already getting maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC, Court denied interim maintenance in DVC]

2011-2015

Sandhya Manoj Wankhade Vs Manoj Bhimrao Wankhade and Ors on 31 January 2011 (Women can also be made respondents)
Dhaval Rajendrabhai Soni Vs Bhavini Dhavalbhai Soni and Ors on 04 Feb 2011 [GHC: Custody cannot be given to non-custodial parents under DV Act; Only visitation permissible to non-custodial parent]
Inderjit Singh Grewal Vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 23 August, 2011 (1 year limitation of 468 CrPC applies to DV Cases)
V.D. Bhanot Vs Savita Bhanot on 07 February 2012 (DV Conduct of parties prior to PWDV Act are to be considered; Mental Cruelty)
Buravilli Siva Madhuri Vs Sri Buravilli Satya Venkata Lakshmana Rao and Ors on 25 September, 2012 (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
Deoki Panjhiyara Vs Shashi Bhushan Narayan Azad and Anr on 12 Dec 2012 [SC: Unless there is a declaration of nullity/void of the marriage by a competent Court or authority, a aggrieved person can take advantage of benefits under DV Act.]
Ashish Dixit and Ors Vs State of U.P. and Anr on 7 January, 2013 (Quashing of false DVC on relatives of husband)
Mewa Singh and others Vs Sukhjeet Kaur on 29 April 2013 (PHHC: appearance of respondents disposed off)
Markapuram Siva Rao & Others Vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 30 April, 2013 (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
Indra Sarma vs V.K.V.Sarma on 26 November, 2013 (SC: No relationship in the nature of marriage, no DV can apply, No maintenance)
Kolli Babi Sarojini And Others Vs Kolli Jayalaxmi And Another on 29 April, 2014 (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
Koushik Vs. Sau. Sangeeta Koushik Gharami & ors on 05 May 2014 [BomHC: No DV, No Reliefs; not even for children]
Ayishabi Vs Shahul Hameed on 16 July, 2014 (KerHC: Dispose within 3 months)
Santosh Sashkant Dhonde Vs Sarika Santosh Dhonde and Ors on 11 September, 2014 [BomHC: Hearing before Interim Orders]
Chandra Sukanya Devi Vs Chandra Srinivasulu on 18 November, 2014 (JMFC Court, Ongole, Andhra Pradesh)
A.K. Srinivasa Rao and 3 Ors Vs State of AP on 19 January, 2015 (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
P.Sugunamma And Others Vs State Of A.P. on 19 January, 2015 (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
Giduthuri Kesari Kumar And Others Vs State of Telangana on 16 February 2015 (APHC: 2 grounds for quashing a DV Case, No shared household, any other case dismissed on same allegations; overruled by SC in Prabha Tyagi here)
Boddu Anjali and Anr Vs Boddu Annapoornamma and Ors on 17 June, 2015 [Ongole JCJC:]
Gaddameedi Nagamani Vs The State Of Telangana on 17 July, 2015 (APHC: If any application is filed under Rule 37 of Criminal Rules of Practice or under Section 126(2) or Section 205 to represent through special vakalat or through advocate or for one to represent others as the case may be, the learned Magistrate shall entertain, hear and pass appropriate orders granting the same with necessary conditions)
Rajkishore Shukla Vs Asha Shukla on 22 September, 2015 (Madhya Pradesh High Court)
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

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)
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)
Monojit Banerjee Vs Shalini Banerjee on 3 October, 2016 [KarHC: Hold an inquiry and then recorded finding as to grant interim relief or not]
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) and also the proviso to sec 2(q)]
Dinesh Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P and Anr on 27 Oct 2016 [AllHC: A Revision under Section 397/401 of Cr P C against a judgment and order passed by the Court of Sessions under
Section 29 of the Act, 2005 is maintainable]
Yadlapalli Mary Mani Vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 21 December, 2016 (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
Girish Kumar Suneja Vs CBI on 13 Jul 2017 [SC: Not a DV case but talks about final, intermediate and Interlocutory Orders]
Manmohan Attavar Vs Neelam Manmohan Attavar on 14 July, 2017 (SC: ‘Domestic Relationship’ Necessary To Permit A Party To Occupy ‘Shared Household’)
Kuppusamy Vs Radhika on 21 July, 2017 (MadHC: Dispose DVC in 2 months)
Santineer Vincent Rajkumar Vs R.Rejitha on 3 August, 2017 (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
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)
Sushila Devi Vs Vikas Kumar Singhal And Ors on 9 Feb 2018 (RajHC: Dispose within 2 months)
S Vs J on 17 Apr 2018 (DHC: Frame issues after hearing both parties)
Ashmin Kashmiri Vs Pushkar Kashmiri on 04 Jul 2018 (HPHC: No DV, No Reliefs; not even for children)
Sabina Sahdev and Ors Vs Vidur Sahdev on 9 Jul 2018 [DHC: no pre-condition can be laid before receiving Appeal/Revision such as deposit maintenance amount]
Lalita Toppo Vs State of Jharkhand on 30 October 2018 (Live-in partner can also file DV case)
Shalu Ojha and Prashant Ojha case (File income affidavit as Prescribed in Kusum Sharma)
Sangita Saha Vs Abhijit Saha and Ors on 28 January, 2019 (SC: No DV, No Reliefs)
- Upheld Abhijit Saha and Ors Vs Sangita Saha on 17 September, 2015 (CalHC: No DV, No Reliefs)
Ajay Kumar Vs Lata @ Sharuti on 08 April 2019 (BIL pays interim maintenance)
Tillottama Kumari Vs State of Bihar and Ors on 16 May 2019 (PatHC: Dispose DVC in 6 weeks)
Kamlesh Devi Vs Jaipal and Ors on 04 Oct 2019 (SC: No allegations of domestic violence; No shared household)
NS Leelavathi Vs R Shilpa Brunda on 11 December, 2019 (Karnataka High Court)
Prakash Vinayak Gaikwad and Ors Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr on 13 Feb 2020 [BomHC: No Shared household, so no domestic relationship so no DVC maintainable on family members]
N.Prasad Vs Harithalakshmi on 20 Jul 2020 (1 year limitation of 468 CrPC applies to DV Cases)
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)
Afia Rasheed Khan Vs Mazharuddin Ali Khan and Anr on 10 Oct 2022 (SC: Upheld BHC Judgment stating casual visits/stays do not qualify as temporary stay)
Satish Chander Ahuja Vs Sneha Ahuja on 15 Oct 2020 (SC: Overruled SR Batra judgment regd Shared Household concept; but also emphasized on the alternate accommodation)
S.Vanitha Vs Deputy Commissioner on 15 Dec 2020 ()

2021-2025

Dr.P.Pathmanathan and Ors Vs V.Monica and Anr on 18 Jan 2021 ()
Masood Khan Vs. Millie Hazarika on 04 Mar 2021 (482 CrPC against DVC is maintainable as per Satish Chander)
Maya and Ors Vs State of U.P. and Ors on 19 Mar 2021 (AllHC: Dispose DVC in 2 months)
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)
Robarto Nieddu Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr on 20 Nov 2021 (RajHC: non-citizen women residing in India temporarily also are classified as ‘aggrieved person’)
Suyalaly and Anr Vs Alphin Jeyasingh and Ors on 29 Nov 2021 (MadHC: Dispose within 2 months)
Ravneet Kaur Vs Prithpal Singh Dhingra on 24 Feb 2022 (DHC: Daughter-in-law can be evicted but an alternate accommodation must be provided)
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))
- Ali Hamid Daruwala Vs Nahida Rishad Cooper and Anr on 28 Feb 2023 (BHC: Relying on Prabha Tyagi, BHC held that no shared householding requirement is necessary)
Vani Santhosh Babu Vs Vijaya Laxmi Vani on 3 Mar 2022 (TelHC: Dispose in 60 days)
Kamatchi Vs Lakshmi Narayanan on 13 Apr 2022 [SC: Limitation does not apply to Sec 12 applications under PWDV Act]
Bharti Anand Vs Sushant Anand and Ors on 26 Apr 2022 [DelHC: Mere fleeting or casual visits/living, without permanency, at different places shall not make it a shared household]
Prabha Tyagi Vs Kamlesh Devi on 12 May 2022 (SC: DIR is not mandatory; No shared holding required)
Rajamma H Vs Thimmaiah V on 09 Jun 2022 (KarHC: Dispose DVC within 2 weeks)
Mrugesh Wasnik Vs Shweta Mrugesh on 22 Jun 2022 (BomHC: Dispose DVC within 3 months)
P Parvathi Vs Pathloth Mangamma on 7 Jul 2022 (TelHC: Directions issued regd appearance of respondents)
Naresh Kumar Yalla Vs State of Telangana on 21 Jul 2022 (TelHC: Dispose DVC in 1 month)
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)
Ragimani Gangadhar Vs Ragimani Padmavathi and Anr on 08 Sep 2022 (APHC: Disclose previous maintenance cases)
Sandeep Pamarati Vs State of AP and Anr on 29 Sep 2022 (APHC: My Own case: Disposal of DVC in 60 days)
S Anandanatesan Vs P Hemalatha on 23 Nov 2022 [MadHC: No DV, No Reliefs]
Rajesh and Anr Vs Station House Officer and Ors on 05 Dec 2022 [KerHC: the existence of a domestic relationship between the complainant and the respondent is the sine qua non for seeking relief under the DV Act]
Sunil Kumar and Ors Vs Elizabeth on 07 Feb 2023 [KarHC: Rental amount in lieu of accommodation in shared household can be given]
Bhawna Vs Bhay Ram and Ors on 17 Feb 2023 [SC: No costs can be imposed on DV complainant for not proceeding with trial]
Bhanu Kiran Vs Rahul Khosla and Ors on 28 Feb 2023 (PHHC: Interim Orders passed by Magistrate are appealable. Sessions Court can pass Interim Orders)
Abhishek Agarwala and Anr Vs Smti Komal Poddar on 01 Mar 2023 (MegHC: Don’t insist on appearance of Respondents on each and every adjournment)
Murlidhar Vs Sangita on 09 Mar 2023 [BomHC: No DV, No Reliefs]
Kavitha M Vs Raghu on 16 Mar 2023 [KarHC: No need to conduct Inquiry in the nature of summary trial before passing Interim reliefs; Over rules Krishnamurthy Nookula Vs Savitha Y on 9 December, 2009]
Sumeet Vs Himani Sumeet Ninave Nee on 29 Mar 2023 [BomHC: DV allegedly committed outside India can also be tried by Indian Courts]
Sharnavva @Kasturi Vs Shivappa on 18 Apr 2023 [KarHC: No Strict proof of marriage required; No validity of marriage to be checked]
Jaspal Kaur alias Pinki and Ors Vs State of Punjab and Anr on 24 Apr 2023 [Relies on Kunapareddy, Kamatchi, ]
Sanjeev Kumar and Ors Vs Sushma Devi on 01 Jun 2023 [HimHC: Frame Issues after Hearing Both Parties]
Rangesh Srinivasan Vs Madhulika Bawa on 07 Jun 2023 [DelHC: Stay on Interim Maintenance Order without any pre-condition; relied on Sabina Sahdev and Ors Vs Vidur Sahdev on 9 Jul 2018]
Shilpashree J.M. Vs Gurumanjunatha .A.S. on 19 Jun 2023 [KarHC: No maintenance to idle sitting wife]
Mummireddygari Prathap Reddy and Ors Vs Mummireddygari Srivani and Ors on 17 Jul 2023 [APHC: No Shared household, so no domestic relationship so no DVC maintainable on family members]
Dhananjay Mohan Zombade Vs Prachi Dhananjay Zombade on 18 Jul 2023 [BomHC: No Shared household, so no domestic relationship so no DVC maintainable]
Ashwini Pradhan Vs UOI and Anr on 08 Aug 2023 [MPHC: Sections 21 and 31 of PWDV Act are not unconstitutional]
M.R.Somasundaram and Ors Vs B Rahini and Anr on 12 Dec 2023 [MadHC: Approach the Magistrate Court itself and raise the issue of maintainability and other preliminary issues]
Mohammed Yasin Naikwadi Vs Aneesa and Anr on 13 Dec 2023 [KarHC: A protection order under DV Act does not include the order of granting monetary relief of maintenance under Section 20 of the D.V. Act]
Kinjal Jayesh Mehta Vs Disha Jimit Sanghvi and Anr on 14 Feb 2024 [BomHC: Mere casual visits of the Petitioner to the shared household being devoid of any permanency is not sufficient and adequate to constitute residence in shared household]
Kiran Jyot Maini Vs Anish Pramod Patel on 15 Jul 2024 [Interim Maintenance granted]
Palaparthi Shebha and Anr Vs State of AP and Anr on 16 Jul 2024 [APHC: Interim maintenance order is made effective from the date of petition and not from date of Order]
Krishnawati Devi and 6 Ors Vs State of UP and Anr on 22 Jan 2025 [AllHC: No Shared household, so no domestic relationship so no DVC maintainable on family members; Verify shared household condition satisfied or not before issuing notices; Dispose within 60 days]
Kalavakuru Srinivas Kumar Reddy Vs Kalavakuru @ Revuru Sujatha and Ors on 05 Feb 2025 [APHC: Follow Rajnesh Vs Neha]
Geddam Jhansi and Anr Vs State of Telangana and Anr on 07 Feb 2025 [SC: DVC proceedings quash for same allegations under Article 142 of Constitution]
Vishal Shah Vs Monalisha Gupta and Ors on 20 Feb 2025 [SC: there is no requirement for the personal presence/appearance of any party in the proceedings under the DV Act, because they are quasi-criminal in nature and do not entail any penal consequences]
Srinivasa D Vs Asha on 20 Mar 2025 [Landmark judgment to rectify baseless Orders of maintenance by Family Court judges in Karnataka]
Abhijit Ankush Shelke and Ors Vs Shubhangi Abhijit Shelke and Anr on 09 May 2025 [SC: Voice sample may be compelled as per Sec 28(2) of PWDV Act and Article 20(3) will not apply]
Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi Vs Vidhi Rawal on 19 May 2025 [SC: High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash proceedings of an application under Section 12(1) or orders passed in accordance with Sections 18 to 23 of the DV Act, 2005]

2026-2030

Deepak Gangadhar Dadge Vs Vijaya and Anr on 17 Jan 2026 [BHC: No suo moto perjury proceedings initiated]
Mariya Zafar and Anr Vs State of UP and Anr on 31 Mar 2026
Rani Bibi Vs Sk Nurullah and Ors on 8 Dec 2025 [CalHC : A wife can file a DV Act case from her temporary residence]
Dinesh kumar Vs Neeti and Ors on 4 Apr 2026

MASTER SITEMAP here.

Ravi Dutta Vs Kiran Dutta and Others on 14 February, 2014

Posted on February 9, 2019 by ShadesOfKnife

Delhi High Court held that Domestic Incident Report (DIR) in a case under PWDV Act is a mandatory element before proceeding to issue any order.

Ravi Dutta Vs Kiran Dutta and Others on 14 February, 2014

Journey through the years – PWDV Act

Posted on December 31, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This is to chronicle the journey of the PWDV Act 2005 through the years from its enactment.

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/126595064/