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: Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005

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

  1. how many DV cases were filed in 2019, 2020 and 2021 in their jurisdictional district,
  2. how may were disposed in 2019, 2020 and 2021 in their jurisdictional district, and
  3. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. Acknowledge the total failure of the implementation of Statutory Compliance of Sec 12(5) of PWDV Act.
  3. Appoint an amicus/LCI to study reasons for this failure in State of AP.
  4. 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)
  5. Setup a periodic monitoring mechanism to report the delays in DV case disposal publicly on AP High Court website.

 

Supporting Case laws:

  1. Mewa Singh and others Vs Sukhjeet Kaur on 29 April 2013 (PHHC: appearance of respondents disposed off)
  2. Ayishabi Vs Shahul Hameed on 16 July, 2014 (KerHC: Dispose within 3 months)
  3. Kuppusamy Vs Radhika on 21 July, 2017 (MadHC: Dispose DVC in 2 months)
  4. Sushila Devi Vs Vikas Kumar Singhal And Ors on 9 Feb 2018 (RajHC: Dispose within 2 months)
  5. Tillottama Kumari Vs State of Bihar and Ors on 16 May 2019 (PatHC: Dispose DVC in 6 weeks)
  6. Maya and Ors Vs State of U.P. and Ors on 19 Mar 2021 (AllHC: Dispose DVC in 2 months)
  7. Suyalaly and Anr Vs Alphin Jeyasingh and Ors on 29 Nov 2021 (MadHC: Dispose within 2 months)
  8. Vani Santhosh Babu Vs Vijaya Laxmi Vani on 3 Mar 2022 (TelHC: Dispose in 60 days)
  9. Rajamma H Vs Thimmaiah V on 09 Jun 2022 (KarHC: Dispose DVC within 2 weeks)
  10. Mrugesh Wasnik Vs Shweta Mrugesh on 22 Jun 2022 (BomHC: Dispose DVC within 3 months)
  11. P Parvathi Vs Pathloth Mangamma on 7 Jul 2022 (TelHC: Directions issued regd appearance of respondents)
  12. Naresh Kumar Yalla Vs State of Telangana on 21 Jul 2022 (TelHC: Dispose DVC in 1 month)
  13. 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.

Posted in Judicial Activism (for Public Benefit) | Tagged 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? PIL - Implement the Statutory Time limit of 60 days to Dispose of a Domestic Violence case as prescribed under Sec 12(5) of the Act Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 PWDV Act Sec 12(5) - Dispose In 60 Days Success Story | Leave a comment

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/

Posted in High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged CPC Order 11 - Discovery and Inspection Interrogatories Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 Sewa Singh Vs Surjit Kaur | Leave a comment

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:

 

Posted in High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged CrPC 482 - Quash being Misused Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 Rooplal and Ors Vs Manpreet Kaur

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

  1. 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

  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. 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.]
  5. V.K.Vijayalekshmi Amma Vs Bindu V on 2 Dec 2009 ()
  6. 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]
  7. Vijay Verma Vs State NCT of Delhi and Anr on 13 August, 2010 (Delhi High Court)
  8. Jovita Olga Ignesia Mascarenhase Coutinho Vs Rajan Maria Coutinho and Anr on 24 Aug 2010 (BHC: Frame Issues after Hearing Both Parties)
  9. 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)
  10. 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

  1. Sandhya Manoj Wankhade Vs Manoj Bhimrao Wankhade and Ors on 31 January 2011 (Women can also be made respondents)
  2. 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]
  3. Inderjit Singh Grewal Vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 23 August, 2011 (1 year limitation of 468 CrPC applies to DV Cases)
  4. V.D. Bhanot Vs Savita Bhanot on 07 February 2012 (DV Conduct of parties prior to PWDV Act are to be considered; Mental Cruelty)
  5. Buravilli Siva Madhuri Vs Sri Buravilli Satya Venkata Lakshmana Rao and Ors on 25 September, 2012 (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
  6. 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.]
  7. Ashish Dixit and Ors Vs State of U.P. and Anr on 7 January, 2013 (Quashing of false DVC on relatives of husband)
  8. Mewa Singh and others Vs Sukhjeet Kaur on 29 April 2013 (PHHC: appearance of respondents disposed off)
  9. Markapuram Siva Rao & Others Vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 30 April, 2013 (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
  10. 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)
  11. Kolli Babi Sarojini And Others Vs Kolli Jayalaxmi And Another on 29 April, 2014 (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
  12. Koushik Vs. Sau. Sangeeta Koushik Gharami & ors on 05 May 2014 [BomHC: No DV, No Reliefs; not even for children]
  13. Ayishabi Vs Shahul Hameed on 16 July, 2014 (KerHC: Dispose within 3 months)
  14. Santosh Sashkant Dhonde Vs Sarika Santosh Dhonde and Ors on 11 September, 2014 [BomHC: Hearing before Interim Orders]
  15. Chandra Sukanya Devi Vs Chandra Srinivasulu on 18 November, 2014 (JMFC Court, Ongole, Andhra Pradesh)
  16. A.K. Srinivasa Rao and 3 Ors Vs State of AP on 19 January, 2015 (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
  17. P.Sugunamma And Others Vs State Of A.P. on 19 January, 2015 (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
  18. 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 Prabha Tyagi here)
  19. Boddu Anjali and Anr Vs Boddu Annapoornamma and Ors on 17 June, 2015 [Ongole JCJC:]
  20. 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)
  21. Rajkishore Shukla Vs Asha Shukla on 22 September, 2015 (Madhya Pradesh High Court)
  22. 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. Monojit Banerjee Vs Shalini Banerjee on 3 October, 2016 [KarHC: Hold an inquiry and then recorded finding as to grant interim relief or not]
  4. 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)]
  5. 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]
  6. Yadlapalli Mary Mani Vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 21 December, 2016 (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
  7. Girish Kumar Suneja Vs CBI on 13 Jul 2017 [SC: Not a DV case but talks about final, intermediate and Interlocutory Orders]
  8. Manmohan Attavar Vs Neelam Manmohan Attavar on 14 July, 2017 (SC: ‘Domestic Relationship’ Necessary To Permit A Party To Occupy ‘Shared Household’)
  9. Kuppusamy Vs Radhika on 21 July, 2017 (MadHC: Dispose DVC in 2 months)
  10. Santineer Vincent Rajkumar Vs R.Rejitha on 3 August, 2017 (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
  11. 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)
  12. Sushila Devi Vs Vikas Kumar Singhal And Ors on 9 Feb 2018 (RajHC: Dispose within 2 months)
  13. S Vs J on 17 Apr 2018 (DHC: Frame issues after hearing both parties)
  14. Ashmin Kashmiri Vs Pushkar Kashmiri on 04 Jul 2018 (HPHC: No DV, No Reliefs; not even for children)
  15. 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]
  16. Lalita Toppo Vs State of Jharkhand on 30 October 2018 (Live-in partner can also file DV case)
  17. Shalu Ojha and Prashant Ojha case (File income affidavit as Prescribed in Kusum Sharma)
  18. 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)
  19. Ajay Kumar Vs Lata @ Sharuti on 08 April 2019 (BIL pays interim maintenance)
  20. Tillottama Kumari Vs State of Bihar and Ors on 16 May 2019 (PatHC: Dispose DVC in 6 weeks)
  21. Kamlesh Devi Vs Jaipal and Ors on 04 Oct 2019 (SC: No allegations of domestic violence; No shared household)
  22. NS Leelavathi Vs R Shilpa Brunda on 11 December, 2019 (Karnataka High Court)
  23. 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]
  24. N.Prasad Vs Harithalakshmi on 20 Jul 2020 (1 year limitation of 468 CrPC applies to DV Cases)
  25. 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)
  26. 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)
  27. 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)
  28. 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 (RajHC: 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))
    • 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)
  9. Vani Santhosh Babu Vs Vijaya Laxmi Vani on 3 Mar 2022 (TelHC: Dispose in 60 days)
  10. Kamatchi Vs Lakshmi Narayanan on 13 Apr 2022 [SC: Limitation does not apply to Sec 12 applications under PWDV Act]
  11. 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]
  12. Prabha Tyagi Vs Kamlesh Devi on 12 May 2022 (SC: DIR is not mandatory; No shared holding required)
  13. Rajamma H Vs Thimmaiah V on 09 Jun 2022 (KarHC: Dispose DVC within 2 weeks)
  14. Mrugesh Wasnik Vs Shweta Mrugesh on 22 Jun 2022 (BomHC: Dispose DVC within 3 months)
  15. P Parvathi Vs Pathloth Mangamma on 7 Jul 2022 (TelHC: Directions issued regd appearance of respondents)
  16. Naresh Kumar Yalla Vs State of Telangana on 21 Jul 2022 (TelHC: Dispose DVC in 1 month)
  17. 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)
  18. Ragimani Gangadhar Vs Ragimani Padmavathi and Anr on 08 Sep 2022 (APHC: Disclose previous maintenance cases)
  19. Sandeep Pamarati Vs State of AP and Anr on 29 Sep 2022 (APHC: My Own case: Disposal of DVC in 60 days)
  20. S Anandanatesan Vs P Hemalatha on 23 Nov 2022 [MadHC: No DV, No Reliefs]
  21. 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]
  22. Sunil Kumar and Ors Vs Elizabeth on 07 Feb 2023 [KarHC: Rental amount in lieu of accommodation in shared household can be given]
  23. Bhawna Vs Bhay Ram and Ors on 17 Feb 2023 [SC: No costs can be imposed on DV complainant for not proceeding with trial]
  24. 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)
  25. 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)
  26. Murlidhar Vs Sangita on 09 Mar 2023 [BomHC: No DV, No Reliefs]
  27. 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]
  28. Sumeet Vs Himani Sumeet Ninave Nee on 29 Mar 2023 [BomHC: DV allegedly committed outside India can also be tried by Indian Courts]
  29. Sharnavva @Kasturi Vs Shivappa on 18 Apr 2023 [KarHC: No Strict proof of marriage required; No validity of marriage to be checked]
  30. Jaspal Kaur alias Pinki and Ors Vs State of Punjab and Anr on 24 Apr 2023 [Relies on Kunapareddy, Kamatchi, ]
  31. Sanjeev Kumar and Ors Vs Sushma Devi on 01 Jun 2023 [HimHC: Frame Issues after Hearing Both Parties]
  32. 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]
  33. Shilpashree J.M. Vs Gurumanjunatha .A.S. on 19 Jun 2023 [KarHC: No maintenance to idle sitting wife]
  34. 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]
  35. Dhananjay Mohan Zombade Vs Prachi Dhananjay Zombade on 18 Jul 2023 [BomHC: No Shared household, so no domestic relationship so no DVC maintainable]
  36. Ashwini Pradhan Vs UOI and Anr on 08 Aug 2023 [MPHC: Sections 21 and 31 of PWDV Act are not unconstitutional]
  37. 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]
  38. 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]
  39. 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]
  40. Kiran Jyot Maini Vs Anish Pramod Patel on 15 Jul 2024 [Interim Maintenance granted]
  41. 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]
  42. 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]
  43. Kalavakuru Srinivas Kumar Reddy Vs Kalavakuru @ Revuru Sujatha and Ors on 05 Feb 2025 [APHC: Follow Rajnesh Vs Neha]
  44. Vishal Shah Vs Monalisha Gupta and Ors on 20 Feb 2025 [SC: there is no requirement for the personal presence of any party in the proceedings under the DV Act, because they are quasi-criminal in nature and do not entail any penal consequences]
  45. 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]

 


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 - Domestic Violence Application to Magistrate PWDV Act Sec 12 - Not Made Out PWDV Act Sec 12(5) - Dispose In 60 Days PWDV Act Sec 29 - No pre-condition to Deposit Maintenance Arrears Summary Post

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
Posted in High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Domestic Incident Report is Not Optional in Case Under PWDV Act Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 Ravi Dutta Vs Kiran Dutta and Others | Leave a comment

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.

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

 


 

Posted in Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications | Tagged Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 Summary Post Work-In-Progress Article | Leave a comment

Lifecycle Stages of a Domestic Violence Case under PWDV Act

Posted on December 28, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Listed below are a reasonably laid-out sequence of events in a Domestic Violence Case filed under PWDV Act, 2005. The rules related to the Act are here.

Note: Take a thorough look at the below infographic to understand the various remedies available for an aggrieved person under this law.

Copyright (c) Holders:
Content: Suprajaa Rajan
Infographic: Padma Priya Jupally #IAmEnough


Other Life Cycles: 498A IPC Case Lifecycle || Maintenance Case u/s 125 CrPC Lifecycle. Index of all life cycles is here. Looking for Domestic Violence case-laws? go here!


Before Entering Into Court

  1. First step is that the aggrieved person/AP [read sec 2(a)] or a Protection Officer or any other person on behalf of the aggrieved person [AP] will file an application under sec 12(1) to the Magistrate seeking one or more reliefs under this Act.

Key Highlights

  • This Act is a CIVIL Act, meaning there are civil reliefs that can be claimed by AP and there is no penal punishment given under this Act. Only one exception to this is, when a person disobeys or violates a protection or interim protection order issued by the Magistrate. [read sec 31]
  • Magistrate will take up the application and order the Protection Officer [read sec 2(n)] to conduct mediation at court-appointed mediation center to see the possibility of a compromise and also to fill 3 ready-made forms called as Domestic Incident Reports (DIR forms).
  • Protection Officer, who is the District Welfare Officer, will issue a notice to all the people named and identified in the application.
    • Purpose: Mentioned as above.
    • What happens there: Lot of emotional drama, oral diarrhoea, convincing words followed by intermittent threats of 498A IPC case by the so-called Protection Officer/other service providers.
    • What to do: Keep your calmest best self and don’t overreact, nor let parents over-react. If you are capable and confident, ensure a audio/video recording of the session is made discreetly. If you have doubts, DO NOT DO IT. More valuable tips here.
  • Apart from husband, other family members who are implicated in this case, may become liable to the reliefs mentioned in the Act, based on the Complainant proving their acts of domestic violence. Maintenance component, under Monetary Reliefs alone, is the whole and sole responsibility of husband.
  • There are various reliefs [AP] may seek under the various sections. Do no worry about property getting taken over or similar issues. No ‘ownership transfer’ of any such property takes place. Only temporary residence may be ordered which one can oppose and offer similar alternative accommodation. Many idiots hope and try to extort money/property via Domestic Violence complaint. They remain idiotic fools.

Focus Areas

  • At this point in time, focus should be
    • to attend the proceedings with Protection Officer
    • to enjoy (record, if possible) the melodrama at mediation center and let it fail (just say, no compromise with liars, when my family was falsely implicated in the case)
    • to not worry about what is captured in the DIR Forms 1-5; they are not equivalent to FIR in case of a criminal matter.
    • to let the case move back to Court (there ends the matter with Protection Officer)
  • PO will send the mediation report along with earlier duly-prepared DIR forms.
  • PO to ensure the AP files the mandatory affidavit prescribed in the Apex Court judgment of Rajnesh Vs Neha, which mandates that the deponent of the affidavit disclosed their income, assets and liabilities.

After Entering Into Court (APPEARANCE AND FOR COUNTER stages)

  1.  Now Court issues a notices to all the respondents ([read sec 2(a)]: proper term for accused people in a Domestic Violence Case) to attend court proceedings on a specific date. The stage is called APPEARANCE.

Key Highlights

  • All respondents to attend court on the first appearance date and give attendance and collect the ‘accused copies’ of Domestic Violence Complaint, Affidavit under 297 CrPC, DIR forms and mediation report from the Court Bench Clerk. One set will be given per respondent.
  • Till this point, no need of engaging an advocate. Court gives next date, the business of which will be FOR COUNTER. The written statement of our objects otherwise a counter, is to be prepared and submitted to the court on next date of appearance or earlier, with Bench Clerk.
  • One may engage a lawyer to plead the case for you here on wards. If you know Law + Case Facts + Court Procedure, one may let court know, you would like to argue the case, on your own, as Party-in-person.
  • It is perfectly OKAY, if there are no DIR reports on the record of the case. It is the mandatory duty of the Protection Officer u/s 9(1)(b) and the duty of the Service Provider u/s 10(2)(a), as applicable, to record/make the DIRs. If they have not done their duty, dispute this fact in your Written Statement. The consequence is that the Presiding Officer (Magistrate) will pass an order to PO/Service Provider to make such DIRs, since it is the Magistrate duty under the proviso to Sec 12(1). But the Case will NOT become invalid and the case will be perfectly maintainable. There is no provision of filing Discharge petition u/s 239 CrPC in a DVC, so don’t waste time and money in this.

Focus Areas

  • At this point in time, focus should be
    • to prepare a Counter/written statement document based on whether the [AP] can prove the allegation laid out in the Domestic Violence Complaint.
    • to deny clearly all those allegations that are absurd, untruths, improbable and baseless, and mention ‘the petitioner is put to strict proof of same’. As settled principle of law, whoever alleges something have the burden of proving the same.
    • to state/submit those facts that can not be denied by Complainant. Rest all facts/evidences are to be secured and need not be shared with lawyer as well.
    • to submit/file the written statement/Counter on the next date prescribed by court. Unless it benefits us in a tangible way, do not skip/seek dates.
    • to ensure respondent (first the AP and then the respondent, in that sequence) file the mandatory affidavit prescribed in the Apex Court judgment of Rajnesh Vs Neha, which mandates that the deponent of the affidavit disclosed their income, assets and liabilities, within 4 weeks of the Income affidavit filed by the AP.
    • to seek mediation facility, if the respondent so desires to settle the matter with the AP.

EXAMINATION Stage

After Written Statement is filed generally, the next stage is the EXAMINATION. Naturally, it would begin examination of the complainant. The Court frames the issues at this Stage of the case. (read O14 R1 of CPC)

Additionally, if the AP filed an application u/s 23 of the PWDV Act seeking interim/ex-parte reliefs, then that application will be picked up by the Court. Scroll down to the relevant section (INTERIM Orders Stage) on this page.

Key Highlights

  • The respondents can file a petition u/s 205 CrPC (with grounds such as age factor, distance to travel, medical/health issues, unavailable in India etc), through your advocate, and seek exemption from personal appearance in the Court.
  • This Stage has two parts involving the AP as well as the respondent.
    • AP has to file an affidavit stating the facts and such affidavit is brought on record of the case/Court after administering Oath to the AP. This is called as Affidavit-in-Chief or Chief-Examination-Affidavit. By doing so, the AP submits herself to the Court as Prosecution Witness-1 (PW-1). Prosecution has to give a list of Prosecution witnesses to the Court and a copy to be given to the Respondent (advocate).
    • After AP file Chief Examination Affidavit (which is more or less replica of the same facts mentioned in the Sec 12 Application) and Respondent gets an opportunity to Cross-Examine the AP (who is now arrayed as PW-1). Read various other techniques respondents can use here.
    • If need arises, the respondent can re-examine the witness, as provided by Evidence Act 1872.
    • Once cross-examination of the PW-1 finishes, Chief examination of next prosecution witness begins, if any available from Prosecution side.
    • Once chief and cross of all prosecution witnesses finishes, the Court gives permission for Respondent side, to submit themselves for Examination.
    • Similar to what happened to Prosecution witnesses, if Respondents want to submit themselves for Prosecution’s examination, they have to give a list of Respondent witnesses to the Court and a copy to be given to the Prosecution (advocate).
    • Then the Chief Examination of DW-1 (Defence Witness/Respondent Witness-1) is finished (or affidavit is filed), followed by the Cross-examination of DW-1. This continues for all DWs.
  • During this Stage, the parties can adduce evidence in support of their stand and get them marked as Exhibits on the record of the Court.

 

ARGUMENTS Stage

After completion of examination of Prosecution and Respondent Witnesses and bring on record all the Evidence from both the parties, the Court opens for Arguments Stage.

Key Highlights

  • The Prosecution team submits their oral arguments in support of their Sec 12 application, relying on the averments in the Chief-Examination Affidavit and prays to the Court to allow their application.
  • The Respondent team submits their oral arguments against the Sec 12 application, relying on the Cross Examination of the Prosecution witnesses and prays to the Court to dismiss the application.
  • Both parties have opportunity to submit Written Arguments after concluding Oral arguments. This is a best practice but rarely followed in Courts.
  • Once both parties conclude their Oral (and/or Written) Arguments, the Court reserves it’s judgment. The case is now ‘Reserved for Judgment‘.
  • Once the judgment is reserved, no more activity is possible from either parties.

 

JUDGMENT Stage

The Court takes time to draft the judgment with reasons for the decision taken and pronounces the same in the Open Court, in the presence of both the parties. The court passes appropriate order/judgement. The court may decide the matter in three manners.

  • Grant all relief sought by complainant
  • Grant some of the reliefs and deny rest of the reliefs
  • Dismiss the complaint entirely without any relief.

Next steps

  • The Prosecution and the Respondent teams have a remedy of Appeal u/s 29 of the Act at Sessions Court, challenging the decision of the Trial Court, within 30 days.

INTERIM Orders Stage

The AP may file an application u/s 23, seeking Interim orders on the available reliefs under this Act. Such interim applications are to be disposed of in summary manner meaning, no evidence is to be taken on record and only the application/written statement/counter and relevant affidavits are the only things that need to be considered. Both parties will be given an opportunity to submit their arguments/hearing, after which the Court will pass an Order.

If such interim orders were obtained by AP by committing the offence of perjury upon the Court, do not hesitate to file an application u/s 340 CrPC in the same Court, right after such judicial order is passed.

 


Ready Reference:


Key Contributor:

Ms. Suprajaa Rajan (B.Com., LL.B.)
Cell:
Posted in Legal Procedure | Tagged Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 Work-In-Progress Article | Leave a comment

Ramu Singh Tomar & Ano. v. Smt. Bhuri Bai on 15 February, 2017

Posted on December 25, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

In this judgment from Madhya Pradesh High Court, it was held that “monetary relief is not restricted to maintenance only. In fact it is the monetary relief to meet the expenses and losses suffered. However, as the monetary relief can be granted towards loss of earnings, medical expenses, for expenses incurred and losses suffered by the aggrieved person, therefore, it cannot be said that the lump sum amount of Rs. 15,000 so awarded by the Appellate Court was only by way of Maintenance Amount.”

Ramu Singh Tomar & Ano. v. Smt. Bhuri Bai on 15 February, 2017

 

Posted in High Court of Madhya Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 PWDV Act Sec 2(q) – ‘Adult Male’ Words Struck Down by SC - Any Person Can Be Respondent In PWDV Case Ramu Singh Tomar and Ano. Vs Smt. Bhuri Bai Statement of Objects and Reasons | Leave a comment

PWDV Act – Statement of Objects and Reasons

Posted on December 1, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

This is the Statement of Objects and Reasons of PWDV Act

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 O&R - Gaz

 

Posted in Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments | Tagged Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 Statement of Objects and Reasons | Leave a comment

CrPC 125 Must Go From Statute Book. And Why?

Posted on November 30, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Here is a little detailed analysis on why CrPC 125 Must Go From Statute Book as discussed in here.

Let’s follow this approach on looking at what the General Law provides for and in superseding fashion, how these two Special Laws provide for same or better or faster or hassle-free reliefs to the same set of beneficiaries.

By default, these being gender-biased social welfare laws, in the guise of Article 15(3) of Constitution of India, the Perpetrator/Accused/Payer is generally, a male person.

The below information is split into below sub-headings for easy reference.

  1. Comparative analysis of provisions of 125 CrPC, PWDV Act, 2005 and MWPSC Act, 2007.
  2. Decisions of Hon’ble High Courts: Both favorable and unfavorable.
  3. Conclusion
  4. Prayers for Writ Petition (PIL)

 

Comparative analysis of provisions of 125 CrPC, PWDV Act, 2005 and MWPSC Act, 2007

  • Origins:

Section 125 CrPC: Came into force via Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 on 25th January, 1974. During the prime minister-ship of Indira Gandhi (Indian National Congress)

Ceiling of Rs.500/- was removed and interim maintenance along with expenses of proceedings was brought in on 24th September, 2001. During the prime minister-ship of Atal Bihari Vajpayee (Bharatiya Janata Party)

Vs

The PWDV Act: Came into force via Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 on 13th September, 2005. During the prime minister-ship of Manmohan Singh (Indian National Congress)

The MWPSC Act: Came into force via Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 on 29th December, 2007. During the prime minister-ship of Manmohan Singh (Indian National Congress)

All details about prime minister ships is from this site here.

 

  • Jurisdiction:

Under 125 CrPC: Per Section 126(1), Proceedings under section 125 may be taken against any person in any district-

(a) where he is, or
(b) where he or his wife, resides, or
(c) where he last resided with his wife, or as the case may be, with the mother of the illegitimate child.

Vs

Under PWDV Act: Per Section 27(1), The court of Judicial Magistrate of the first class or the Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, within the local limits of which-
(a) the person aggrieved permanently or temporarily resides or carries on business or is employed; or
(b) the respondent resides or carries on business or is employed; or
(c) the cause of action has arisen,
shall be the competent court to grant a protection order and other orders under this Act and to try offences under this Act.

Under MWPSC Act: Per Section 6(1), The proceedings under section 5 may be taken against Jurisdiction and procedure any children or relative in any district-
a. where he resides or last resided; or
b. where children or relative resides.

 

  • Nature of Proceedings:

Under 125 CrPC: Summary proceedings – “a civil or criminal proceeding in the nature of a trial that is conducted without formalities (as indictment, pleadings, and usually a jury) for the speedy and peremptory disposition of a matter, meant to prevent vagrancy”

Vs

Under PWDV Act: Per Section 12(4), Generally, Regular proceedings, no skipping of procedures as in Summary Proceedings. But, Per Section 28(2), Nothing in sub-section (1) shall prevent the court from laying down its own procedure for disposal of an application under section 12 or under sub-section (2) of section 23. This would mean, Summary proceedings may be adopted by the Trial Court Magistrate in the interest of Objective mentioned in the Objects and Reasons.

Under MWPSC Act: Per Section 8(1), Summary proceedings – “a civil or criminal proceeding in the nature of a trial that is conducted without formalities (as indictment, pleadings, and usually a jury) for the speedy and peremptory disposition of a matter”.

 

  • Beneficiaries:

Under 125 CrPC: Per Section 125(1), Wife, Children and Parents are the beneficiaries, irrespective of caste, creed, religion.

Vs

Under PWDV Act: Wife and Children are the beneficiaries, irrespective of caste, creed, religion.

Under MWPSC Act: Parents (senior citizens, meaning over 60 years or otherwise) and grand parents are the beneficiaries, irrespective of caste, creed, religion.

 

  • Rights of Beneficiaries:

Under 125 CrPC: Even divorced women are entitled for maintenance, as per Section 125(1), Explanation (b) – “wife” includes a woman who has been divorced by, or has obtained a divorce from, her husband and has not remarried.

SC judgment to hold that Divorced folks are eligible beneficiaries of 125 CrPC here even when the husband is deserted by wife. Woww But just 1 year back from this SC order, Husband-deserting advocate-wife was denied maintenance by an innocent High Court of Madhya Pradesh going by the rule book, I meant the famous, 125 CrPC.

Also Judicially separated folks are also eligible beneficiaries per this judgement here.

And the walk-in types, I meant the live-in type are also eligible for the benefits per this P&H HC judgment here. This is a hilarious case. Read it for the kicks. Livelaw link here. More fun here, here and here.

 

Vs

Under PWDV Act: Even divorced women are entitled for maintenance, as per Section 2(f). See 2014 SC judgment here which is based on a technicality. Although P&H HC holds otherwise here. Also Delhi HC here.

One more, Ajay Kumar Reddy & Ors vs State Of Chhattisgarh & Anr CRMP 387 in 2016 (19.07.17).

Under MWPSC Act: Parents can kickoff careless and negligent children from any of their property. Recent judgment from Delhi HC here.

 

  • Initiating the proceedings:

Under 125 CrPC: File a MC case directly in Court.

Vs

Under PWDV Act: Per Section 4(1), Any person who has reason to believe that an act of domestic violence has been, or is being, or is likely to be committed, may give information about it to the concerned Protection Officer. Per Section 5, a complaint can be given to Protection Officer, police officer, Service Provider (Any NGO) or Magistrate dealing with DV Cases.

Under MWPSC Act: Per Section 5(1), An application for maintenance under section 4, may be made-
(a) by a senior citizen or a parent, as the case may be; or
(b) if he is incapable, by any other person or organization authorized by him; or
(c) the Tribunal may take cognizance suo motu.

 

  • Legal Contention (reason for filing the case):

Under 125 CrPC: Per Section 125(1), Wife, Children and Parents are subjected to willful neglect (=This is Domestic Violence in general and economic abuse, in particular) and those who are unable to maintain themselves.

Vs

Under PWDV Act: Per Section 3, Wife and Children are subjected to Domestic Violence (includes Physical, Sexual, Verbal & Emotional and Economic Abuse).

Under MWPSC Act: Per Section 4(1), Parents (and grand parents) are the unable to maintain themselves from their own earnings or out of the property owned by them.

 

  • Defendants/Respondents:

Under 125 CrPC: Per Section 125(1), A person who may have a wife, Children and Parents are the Defendants/Respondents.

PIL Point: Per Sec 8 of IPC, an inference can be made that a parent can seek maintenance from their daughter and a child from their mother. Landmark judgment from Hon’ble Supreme Court available here.

Vs

Under PWDV Act: Per Section 2(a) “any woman who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person and against whom the aggrieved person has sought any relief under this Act“.

E.g.: A Mother-in-law can also file Domestic Violence Case on a Daughter-in-law and claim appropriate benefits.

Under MWPSC Act: Per Section 4(1), “The proceedings can be taken against any children (including son, daughter, grand-son and grand-daughter) or relative (any legal heir of childless senior citizen)“.

 

  • Benefits/Reliefs:

Under 125 CrPC: Per Section 125(1)(d), Maintenance in cash.

Vs

Under PWDV Act: Per Sections 17, 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22, Right to reside in a shared household, Protection from further domestic violence, Residence, Maintenance, Custody of kids and Compensation Orders.

Under MWPSC Act: Per Section 2(b), Monthly maintenance in cash to cater to provisions for food, clothing, residence and medical attendance and treatment.

 

  • Limitations on Reliefs (Maintenance amount):

Under 125 CrPC: No statutory limit imposed on the amount of maintenance granted, if granted.

Vs

Under PWDV Act: No statutory limit imposed on the amount of maintenance granted, if granted.

Under MWPSC Act: Per Section 9(2), Maximum monthly maintenance of Rs.10,000/- in cash. Can only claim maintenance under either this Act or under 125 CrPC, not under both. Read Section 12 of the Act.

 

  • Statutory Limitation on Time for Case Disposal:

Under 125 CrPC: No statutory limit imposed on the time taken to dispose of the case, even though it is a summary proceeding.

Vs

Under PWDV Act: Per Section 12(5), Statutory limit imposed on time taken to dispose of the case, which is 60 days.

Under MWPSC Act: Per Section 5(4), Statutory limit imposed on time taken to dispose of the case, which is 90 days.

 

  • Statutory Time for recovery:

Under 125 CrPC: Per Section 125(3), If any person so ordered fails without sufficient cause to comply with the order, any such Magistrate may, for every breach of the order, issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying fines, and may sentence such person, for the whole or any part of each month’ s allowances remaining unpaid after the execution of the warrant, to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or until payment if sooner made: Provided that no warrant shall be issued for the recovery of any amount due under this section unless application be made to the Court to levy such amount within a period of one year from the date on which it became due.

Vs

Under PWDV Act: None prescribed.

Under MWPSC Act: Per Section (5)8, If, children or relative so ordered fail, without sufficient cause to comply with the order, any such Tribunal may, for every breach of the order, issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying fines, and may sentence such person for the whole, or any part of month’s allowance for the maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case be, remaining unpaid after the execution of the warrant, to imprisonment for a team which may extend to one month or until payment if sooner made whichever is earlier: Provided that no warrant shall be issued for the recovery of any amount due under this section unless application be made to the Tribunal to levy such amount within period of three months from the date on which it become due.

 

  • Exceptions/Alterations/Cancellations:

Under 125 CrPC:

  1. Per Section 125(4), No Wife shall be entitled to receive an allowance from her husband under this section if she is living in adultery, or if, without any sufficient reason, she refuses to live with her husband, or if they are living separately by mutual consent.
  2. Per Section 125(5), On proof that any wife in whose favour an order has been made under this section is living in adultery, or that without sufficient reason she refuses to live with her husband, or that they are living separately by mutual consent, the Magistrate shall cancel the order.

Also read Section 127 of CrPC.

Vs

Under PWDV Act:  Per Section 25(2), If the Magistrate, on receipt of an application from the aggrieved person or the respondent, is satisfied that there is a change in the circumstances requiring alteration, modification or revocation of any order made under this Act, he may, for reasons to be recorded in writing pass such order, as he may deem appropriate.

Under MWPSC Act: Per Section 10(1), On proof of misrepresentation or mistake of fact or a change in the circumstances of any person, receiving a monthly allowance under section 9, for the maintenance or ordered under that section to pay a monthly allowance for the maintenance, the Tribunal may make such alteration, as it thinks fit, in the allowance for the maintenance.

 

  • Appeal provisions on the Order of maintenance or dismissal thereof:

Under 125 CrPC: Per Section 125(5), On proof that any wife in whose favour an order has been made under this section is living in adultery, or that without sufficient reason she refuses to live with her husband, or that they are living separately by mutual consent, the Magistrate shall cancel the order.

Vs

Under PWDV Act: Per Section 29, Appeal.-There shall lie an appeal to the Court of Session within thirty days from the date on which the order made by the Magistrate is served on the aggrieved person or the respondent, as the case may be, whichever is later.

Under MWPSC Act: Per Section 16(1), Any senior citizen or a parent, as the case may be, aggrieved by an order of a
Tribunal may, within sixty days from the date of the order, prefer an appeal to the Appellate Tribunal
Provided further that the Appellate Tribunal may, entertain the appeal after the expiry of the said period of sixty days, if it is satisfied that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from preferring the appeal in time.

 

  • Impact of amendments made to provisions:

Under 125 CrPC: Ceiling of Rs.500/- was removed in Amendment to CrPC in 2001. Most possibly, this being one significant reason, the volume of 125 CrPC case may have risen.

Vs

Under PWDV Act: No Amendment till date.

Under MWPSC Act: No Amendment till date.

 

  • Conflicts with other Laws allowing Double Jeopardy to happen:

Under 125 CrPC: Since it is a general law, superseded by PWDV Act and MWPSC Act, this set of sections 125-128 should be struck down and provisions allowing for dual reliefs in special laws should be altered appropriately.

Vs

Under PWDV Act:

Per Section 26,

(1) Any relief available under sections 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 may also be sought in any legal proceeding, before a civil court, family court or a criminal court, affecting the aggrieved person and the respondent whether such proceeding was initiated before or after the commencement of this Act.
(2) Any relief referred to in sub-section (1) may be sought for in addition to and along with any other relief that the aggrieved person may seek in such suit or legal proceeding before a civil or criminal court.
(3) In case any relief has been obtained by the aggrieved person in any proceedings other than a proceeding under this Act, she shall be bound to inform the Magistrate of the grant of such relief.

Per Section 36, Act not in derogation of any other law.-The provisions of this Act shall be in addition to, and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law, for the time being in force.

Under MWPSC Act: Per Section 3, The provisions of this Act shall have effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any enactment other than this Act, or in any instrument having effect by virtue of any enactment other than this Act.

 

  • Imposition of Costs:

Under 125 CrPC: Per Section 126(3), The Court in dealing with applications under section 125 shall have power to make such order as to costs as may be just.

Vs

Under PWDV Act: Per Section 28(2), Nothing in sub-section (1) shall prevent the court from laying down its own procedure for disposal of an application under section 12 or under sub-section (2) of section 23.

Under MWPSC Act: None prescribed.

 

  • Availability of Interim Reliefs

Under 125 CrPC: Even though, no where in Sections 125-128 CrPC, a provision for Interim maintenance is mandated, Various Courts held that Interim orders are maintainable.

Vs

Under PWDV Act: Per Section 23(1), In any proceeding before him under this Act, the Magistrate may pass such interim order as he deems just and proper.

Under MWPSC Act: Per Section 5(2), The Tribunal may, during the pendency of the proceeding regarding monthly allowance for the maintenance under this section, order such children or relative to make a monthly allowance for the interim maintenance of such senior citizen including parent is to pay the same to such senior citizen including parent as the Tribunal may from time to time direct.

 

  • Statutory effective date of maintenance order:

Under 125 CrPC: Per Section 125(2), Such allowance shall be payable from the date of the order, or, if so ordered, from the date of the application for maintenance.

Vs

Under PWDV Act: No such effective date of maintenance prescribed.

Under MWPSC Act: Per Section 7, Any such allowance for the maintenance and expenses for proceeding shall be payable from the date of the order, or, if so ordered, from the date of the application for maintenance or expenses of proceeding, as the case may be.

 

  • Strict proof of Prima Facie evidence before obtaining Interim Reliefs

Under 125 CrPC: No strict proof required as it is a Summary proceeding in nature. Bombay High Court ruling here and new article here, Supreme Court held the same in these two judgments: Landmark Judgment of 2010 here and a recent judgment from 2018 here.

Vs

Under PWDV Act: Per Section 23(1), In any proceeding before him under this Act, the Magistrate may pass such interim order as he deems just and proper.

Under MWPSC Act: None Prescribed.

 

  • Obtaining Ex Parte Orders

Under 125 CrPC: Per Section 126(2), Provided that if the Magistrate is satisfied that the person against whom an order for payment of maintenance is proposed to be made is wilfully avoiding service, or wilfully neglecting to attend the Court, the Magistrate may proceed to hear and determine the case ex parte and any order so made may be set aside for good cause shown on an application made within three months from the date thereof subject to such terms including terms at to payment of costs to the opposite party as the Magistrate may think just and proper.

Vs

Under PWDV Act: Per Section 23(2), If the Magistrate is satisfied that an application prima facie discloses that the respondent is committing, or has committed an act of domestic violence or that there is a likelihood that the respondent may commit an act of domestic violence, he may grant an ex parte order on the basis of the affidavit in such form, as may be prescribed, of the aggrieved person under section 18, section 19, section 20, section 21 or, as the case may be, section 22 against the respondent.

Under MWPSC Act: Per Section 6(4), Provided that if the Tribunal is satisfied that the children or relative against whom an order for payment of maintenance is proposed to be made is willfully avoiding service, or willfully neglecting to attend the Tribunal, the Tribunal may proceed to hear and determine the case ex parte.

 

  • Efforts to be taken to get maintenance orders executed, upon failure of payment

Under 125 CrPC: Per Section 128, A copy of the order of maintenance shall be given without payment to the person in whose favour it is made, or to his guardian, if any or to the person to whom the allowance is to be paid; and such order may be enforced by any Magistrate in any place where the person against whom it is made may be, on such Magistrate being satisfied as to the identity of the parties and the non- payment of the allowance due.

Vs

Under PWDV Act: Per Section 9(h),Duties and functions of Protection Officers.-(1) It shall be the duty of the Protection Officer-. to ensure that the order for monetary relief under section 20 is complied with and executed, in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974);

Per Section 20(1)(d), Monetary reliefs: (1) While disposing of an application under sub-section (1) of section 12, the Magistrate may direct the respondent to pay monetary relief to meet the expenses incurred and losses suffered by the aggrieved person and any child of the aggrieved person as a result of the domestic violence and such relief may include, but not limited to,- the maintenance for the aggrieved person as well as her children, if any, including an order under or in addition to an order of maintenance under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974) or any other law for the time being in force.

Per Section 20(6), Monetary reliefs: Upon the failure on the part of the respondent to make payment in terms of the order under sub-section (1), the Magistrate may direct the employer or a debtor of the respondent, to directly pay to the aggrieved person or to deposit with the court a portion of the wages or salaries or debt due to or accrued to the credit of the respondent, which amount may be adjusted towards the monetary relief payable by the respondent.

Under MWPSC Act: Per Section 11(2), A maintenance order made under this Act shall have the same force and effect as an order passed under Chapter IX of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 and shall be executed in the manner prescribed for the execution of such order by that Code.

 

  • Provision for penal punishment on failure to pay maintenance

Under 125 CrPC: Per Section 125(3), If any person so ordered fails without sufficient cause to comply with the order, any such Magistrate may, for every breach of the order, issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying fines, and may sentence such person, for the whole or any part of each month’ s allowances remaining unpaid after the execution of the warrant, to imprisonment for a term which may extend to one month or until payment if sooner made: Provided that no warrant shall be issued for the recovery of any amount due under this section unless application be made to the Court to levy such amount within a period of one year from the date on which it became due: Provided further that if such person offers to maintain his wife on condition of her living with him, and she refuses to live with him, such Magistrate may consider any grounds of refusal stated by her, and may make an order under this section notwithstanding such offer, if he is satisfied that there is just ground for so doing. Explanation.- If a husband has contracted marriage with another woman or keeps a mistress, it shall be considered to be just ground for his wife’ s refusal to live with him.

Per Section 421: Warrant for levy of fine

(1) When an offender has been sentenced to pay a fine, the Court passing the sentence may take action for the recovery of the fine in either or both of the following ways, that is to say, it may-

(a) issue a warrant for the levy of the amount by attachment and sale of any movable property belonging to the offender;
(b) issue a warrant to the Collector of the district, authorising him to realise the amount as arrears of land revenue from the movable or immovable property, or both, of the defaulter: Provided that, if the sentence directs that in default of payment of the fine, the offender shall be imprisoned, and if such offender has undergone the whole of such imprisonment in default, no Court shall issue such warrant unless, for special reasons to be recorded in writing, it considers it necessary so to do, or unless it has made an order for the payment of expenses or compensation out of the fine under section 357.

 

Some landmark judgments by Hon’ble High Courts of Patna and Bombay

  • Laljee Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar on 16 September, 2011
  • Sachin Vs Sau. Sushma on 6 May, 2014

Vs

Under PWDV Act: Per Section 9(1)(h), Duties and functions of Protection Officers.-(1) It shall be the duty of the Protection Officer-. to ensure that the order for monetary relief under section 20 is complied with and executed, in accordance with the procedure prescribed under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974);

Under MWPSC Act: Per Section (5)8, If, children or relative so ordered fail, without sufficient cause to comply with the order, any such Tribunal may, for every breach of the order, issue a warrant for levying the amount due in the manner provided for levying fines, and may sentence such person for the whole, or any part of month’s allowance for the maintenance and expenses of proceeding, as the case be, remaining unpaid after the execution of the warrant, to imprisonment for a team which may extend to one month or until payment if sooner made whichever is earlier: Provided that no warrant shall be issued for the recovery of any amount due under this section unless application be made to the Tribunal to levy such amount within period of three months from the date on which it become due.

 

  • Relief available when all available remedies are exhaused:

Under 125 CrPC: Statutory limit imposed on time taken to dispose of the case, which is 60 days. Read 2001 Amendment to CrPC here.

Vs

Under PWDV Act: Per Section 12(5), Statutory limit imposed on time taken to dispose of the case, which is 60 days.

Under MWPSC Act: Per Section 16(6), appeal to be disposed off in 1 month from date of receiving appeal.

 

  • Objects and Reasons

Under 125 CrPC: None.

Vs

Under PWDV Act: Presently, where a woman is subjected to cruelty by her husband or his relatives, it is an offence under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code. The civil law does not, however, address this phenomenon in its entirety. It is, therefore, proposed to enact a law keeping in view the rights guaranteed under articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution to provide for a remedy under the civil law which is intended to protect woman from being victims of domestic violence and to prevent the occurrence of domestic violence in the society. The Act seeks to achieve the said object.

Under MWPSC Act: Though the parents can claim maintenance under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, the procedure is time-consuming as well as expensive. Hence, there is a need to have simple, inexpensive and speedy provisions to claim maintenance for parents.

 

Decisions of Hon’ble High Courts: Both favorable and unfavorable

Hon’ble High Courts of various States have held favorably that…

Madras High Court:

In a recent judgment, Hon’ble Shri M.S.Ramesh of Madras High Court has reiterated that “The petitioner herein having chosen to invoke the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act seeking for monetary relief under Section 20(3), cannot subsequently invoke Section 125 Cr.P.C., for maintenance on the same set of facts and cause of action in view of my reasonings given above.” The sequence of cases are first DV case and then 125 CrPC on exact same allegations on past and Hon’ble Judge showed the door to the false complainant. The judgment is available here.

Another wonderful judgment here from same Hon’ble Madras High Court from Justice Shri S.Nagamuthu was the landmark judgment referred in above 2018 judgment. In this case, the sequence of cases are first 125 CrPC and then DV case on exact same allegations on past and Hon’ble Judge showed the door to the false complainant.

Bombay High Court:

Based on above landmark judgment, Hon’ble Bombay High Court also issued a very good order here recently in 2018.

Another judgment from 2018 here, talks about adjusting the maintenance amount in 125 CrPC with that of granted in DVC.

The Recent April 25, 2019 judgment here clearly says, “Once Divorce Is Granted, Relief Can’t Be Sought Under Domestic Violence Act” which in absolutely certain terms says, that divorced women cannot invoke DV proceedings and the domestic relationship ceases to exists post divorce and hence, as a corollary, remedy available for such divorced women for maintenance is ONLY under 125 CrPC.

Gujarat High Court: Even Gujarat High Court, in 2015, talks about adjustment between multiple maintenance orders, if granted. Read it here.

Delhi High Court:

Shri Justice Shiv Narayan Dhingra, has delivered these judgments in 2010,

  1. https://www.shadesofknife.in/harbans-lal-malik-vs-payal-malik-on-29-july-2010/
  2. https://www.shadesofknife.in/renu-mittal-vs-anil-mittal-and-others-on-27-september-2010/
  3. https://www.shadesofknife.in/rachna-kathuria-vs-ramesh-kathuria-on-30-august-2010/
    1. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/113760308/

 

Some vexed up Brave hearts have fought back against unfavorable Judgments

  1. https://www.livelaw.in/husband-follow-maintenance-orders-crpc-domestic-violence-act-sc-issues-notice-read-order/
    1. https://www.livelaw.in/order-maintenance-awarded-domestic-violence-act-cannot-substituted-maintenance-s-125-crpc-read-judgment/
  2. If Wife sits idle, after resigning from work without reason, just before filing false maintenance complaint, it is fine. But husband if seeks maintenance (of course under S 24 of HMAct) from working wife (only after he is able to prove any incapability or handicap), the Court observed that in absence of such circumstances as enumerated above, endowing maintenance on the husband would only promote idleness.
    1. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/177540678/
  3. Woman tried to ascribe domestic relationship to already married man: https://www.shadesofknife.in/gautam-jairam-gawai-vs-ragini-gautam-gawai-anr-on-20-january-2017/
  4. Both proceedings of maintenance under 125 CrPC and PWDV Act are maintainable:
    1. https://www.shadesofknife.in/poonam-vs-v-p-sharma-on-25-february-2014/
    2. https://www.shadesofknife.in/ramu-singh-tomar-ano-v-smt-bhuri-bai-on-15-february-2017/
    3. https://www.shadesofknife.in/tanushree-ors-vs-a-s-moorthy-on-7-february-2018/

 

The below are the victims who were saddled with maintenance under more than one laws.

  1. https://indiankanoon.org/doc/127433736/
    1. Sec 125 CrPC allowed by order on 23.01.2017
    2. Sec 23 of PWDV Act application dismissed by order on 06.04.2018

 

Conclusion

These judgments seem to be hinting at, for first-ever offence of husband of Domestic Violence (without a doubt, neglect and non-maintenance under 125 CrPC, is a violence under PWDV Act too), the ladies (married and later statuses) of India can choose 125 CrPC as their go-to law to extort monies from the husband, they don’t want to live with and for every new and subsequent act of domestic violence, it is the application under PWDV Act that they should file, for speedy disposal/dole outs, allegedly under 60 days per section 12(5) of PWDV Act.

Truly, Ingenious way of making and implementing beneficial laws in my motherland, India.

 

Prayers for the Writ petition (PIL)

In addition to 125 CrPC (along with 126, 127 & 128 CrPC), the sections 20(1)(d) and 36 of PWDV Act are to be stuck down, as they are the ones supporting/enabling/causing Double Jeopardy to happen via PWDV Act, in colluded collaboration with 125 CrPC.

It is not rocket science to understand why the legislators on that time in 2005 did what they did. The PWDV Act, when brought in, was catering to only 2 of the beneficiaries of 125 CrPC, namely Wife and Children. Obviously, no one can foresee that in 2007, MWPSC Act will be brought in. As such, Parents are still to depend on 125 CrPC for their maintenance as on 2005.

But when the MWPSC Act was brought in 2007, the above shortcoming was fulfilled and all beneficiaries of 125 CrPC (Various stautses of Wife, Parents and Children) were gainfully and sufficiently covered under the both laws PWDV Act + MWPSC Act, put together.

Thereby, making 125 CrPC a vestige that has to be hacked off from the CrPC Statute book. Once 125 CrPC and its related sections are stuck down as infructuous, there would be no confusion among the masses as well as the judicial officers on order from which law should be followed or both to be followed etcetera.


More references:

  1. https://tilakmarg.com/opinion/what-happens-to-pending-corruption-cases-under-section-131d-of-pc-act-after-its-repeal-in-2018-amendment/
  2. https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-ab&q=intelligible+differntia
  3. https://mynation.net/docs/judgments/
  4. http://vaastav.org/judgements/divorce/
  5. https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-ab&q=forum+shopping

Thoroughly detailed post is available here, which includes corrections and additions to above points, that will feed into the Public Interest Litigation (Writ Petition at High Court of Andhra Pradesh), that I am going to file, at appropriate time in 2019.

The prayers section of the PIL is available here.


 

Posted in Judicial Activism (for Public Benefit) | Tagged CrPC 125 or BNSS 144 - Order for Maintenance of Wives Children and Parents CrPC 126 - Procedure CrPC 127 - Alteration in allowance CrPC 128 - Enforcement of Order of Maintenance Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act 2007 PIL - CrPC 125 or BNSS 144 Must Go From Statute Book Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 | 2 Comments

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
idf Israel Defense Forces @idf ·
16h

Yonatan Samerano was murdered and kidnapped during the Oct. 7 Massacre by an @UNRWA worker.

Yesterday, his body was recovered alongside the bodies of SSGT Shay Levinson, and Ofra Keidar in Gaza.

Where is the world’s outrage?

Reply on Twitter 1937204678606848216 Retweet on Twitter 1937204678606848216 1185 Like on Twitter 1937204678606848216 4398 X 1937204678606848216
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
yashtdp_ Yash @yashtdp_ ·
23 Jun

నరసరావుపేటలో యువత పోరు అంటూ నాటకాలు వేస్తున్న పేటీఎం కుక్కల్ని చితకబాదిన ఏపీ పోలీసులు..👏💪
#Yuvathaporu #Narasaraopet

Reply on Twitter 1937057195713265893 Retweet on Twitter 1937057195713265893 323 Like on Twitter 1937057195713265893 1588 X 1937057195713265893
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
osint613 Open Source Intel @osint613 ·
14h

Trump: “Iran has officially responded to our obliteration of their nuclear facilities with a very weak response, which we expected, and have very effectively countered. There have been 14 missiles fired — 13 were knocked down, and 1 was ‘set free’ because it was headed in a…

Reply on Twitter 1937238782568464825 Retweet on Twitter 1937238782568464825 125 Like on Twitter 1937238782568464825 996 X 1937238782568464825
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
spectatorindex The Spectator Index @spectatorindex ·
14h

BREAKING: Trump thanks Iran for giving 'early notice' of its 'very weak response'

Reply on Twitter 1937238841561350369 Retweet on Twitter 1937238841561350369 900 Like on Twitter 1937238841561350369 7118 X 1937238841561350369
Load More

Recent Posts

  • Dhaval Rajendrabhai Soni Vs Bhavini Dhavalbhai Soni and Ors on 04 Feb 2011 June 22, 2025
  • Ghanshyam Soni Vs State (NCT of Delhi) and Anr on 04 Jun 2025 June 17, 2025
  • V.Rajesh Vs S.Anupriya on 04 Jun 2025 June 16, 2025
  • Bal Manohar Jalan Vs Sunil Paswan and Anr on 30 Jun 2014 June 8, 2025
  • Bilal Ahmad Ganaie Vs Sweety Rashid and Ors on 11 May 2023 June 8, 2025

Most Read Posts

  • Vishal Shah Vs Monalisha Gupta and Ors on 20 Feb 2025 (2,689 views)
  • Mudireddy Divya Vs Sulkti Sivarama Reddy on 26 Mar 2025 (2,217 views)
  • Sukhdev Singh Vs Sukhbir Kaur on 12 Feb 2025 (1,985 views)
  • Madan Kumar Satpathy Vs Priyadarshini Pati on 07 Feb 2025 (1,595 views)
  • Megha Khetrapal Vs Rajat Kapoor on 19 Mar 2025 (1,419 views)
  • Om Prakash Ambadkar Vs State of Maharashtra and Ors on 16 Jan 2025 (1,169 views)
  • Ivan Rathinam Vs Milan Joseph on 28 Jan 2025 (1,050 views)
  • State of AP Vs Basa Nalini Manohar and Ors on 23 Dec 2024 (872 views)
  • Saikat Das Vs State of West Bengal and Anr on 27 Mar 2025 (800 views)
  • Akkala Rami Reddy Vs State of AP and Anr on 30 Apr 2025 (778 views)

Tags

Reportable Judgement or Order (402)2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision (372)Landmark Case (368)Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes (367)1-Judge Bench Decision (293)Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to (273)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 (59)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 (43)HM Act 13 - Divorce Granted to Husband (42)Not Authentic copy hence to be replaced (40)CrPC 482 - Quash (39)Divorce granted on Cruelty ground (39)Legal Terrorism (38)

Categories

Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification (716)Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments (318)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 (106)High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification (86)High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification (66)General Study Material (55)High Court of Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification (50)High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification (50)Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications (49)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 (35)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

  • June 2025 (10)
  • 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

  • BGW (Baghdad) on 2025-07-03 July 3, 2025
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Jul 3, 03:00 - 05:30 UTCJun 12, 23:01 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in BGW (Baghdad) datacenter on 2025-07-03 between 03:00 and 05:30 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 end-users […]
  • NJF (Najaf) on 2025-07-03 July 3, 2025
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Jul 3, 03:00 - 05:30 UTCJun 12, 23:01 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in NJF (Najaf) datacenter on 2025-07-03 between 03:00 and 05:30 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 end-users […]
  • BSR (Basra) on 2025-07-03 July 3, 2025
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Jul 3, 03:00 - 05:30 UTCJun 12, 23:01 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in BSR (Basra) datacenter on 2025-07-03 between 03:00 and 05:30 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 end-users […]

RSS List of Spam Server IPs from Project Honeypot

  • 212.57.126.100 | SD June 23, 2025
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 51 | First: 2025-06-23 | Last: 2025-06-23
  • 180.178.47.195 | SD June 23, 2025
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 120 | First: 2025-05-17 | Last: 2025-06-23
  • 162.248.100.196 | S June 23, 2025
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 78 | First: 2025-03-02 | Last: 2025-06-23
Owned and Operated by Advocate Sandeep Pamarati
Proudly powered by WordPress
Theme: Flint by Star Verte LLC

Bad Behavior has blocked 5943 access attempts in the last 7 days.

pixel