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: Rajnesh Pal Naidu Vs Neha Naidu Joshi and Anr

Kalavakuru Srinivas Kumar Reddy Vs Kalavakuru @ Revuru Sujatha and Ors on 05 Feb 2025

Posted on March 21 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court held that an Order for Maintenance passed without adhering to the guidelines issued by Apex Court in Rajnesh Vs Neha is liable to be set aside.

From Para 6,

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner herein/husband would contend that no disclosure statement was filed by the respondent No.1 herein/wife and without the said statement, it is difficult to estimate the financial expenses of either of the parties to come to a conclusion as to how much amount is to be awarded to the respondent Nos.1 and 2 towards maintenance.

From Para 8,

8. A perusal of entire material on record coupled with the Order and Judgment passed by the learned Magistrate and the learned Sessions Judge, respectively, goes to show that either of the parties did not file disclosure statement. A disclosure statement in a Domestic Violence Case (DVC) refers to a document where a party involved in the case is required to provide detailed information about their financial assets and liabilities, including income, property ownership, bank accounts, and debt, as per the Court’s Order, usually to help in determining the appropriate maintenance or compensation amount in the case

From Para 10,

10. A plain reading of the above proposition of law, it is evident that while deciding the quantum of maintenance in the subsequent proceeding, the Civil Court/Family Court shall take into account the maintenance awarded in any previously instituted proceeding, and determine the maintenance payable to the claimant. The applicant shall disclose the previous maintenance proceeding, and the orders passed therein, to enable the Court to take into consideration the maintenance that was already awarded in the previous proceeding, and grant an adjustment or set-off of the said amount and if the order passed in the previous proceeding requires any modification or variation, the party would be required to move the concerned court in the previous proceeding. In the case on hand, apparently, no disclosure statement was filed. It is mandatory that both husband and wife are supposed to file the disclosure statement before the trial Court. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, this Court is of the opinion that the case in DVC No.27 of 2016 shall be remanded to the Special Judicial Magistrate of First Class for trial of Prohibition and Excise Offences, Nellore, for fresh disposal.

Kalavakuru Srinivas Kumar Reddy Vs Kalavakuru @ Revuru Sujatha and Ors on 05 Feb 2025

Disclaimer: This is a case that I handled myself for the husband.


Citations:

Other Sources:

 


Index of Maintenance cases under section 12 of DV Act is here.

Posted in High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision Kalavakuru Srinivas Kumar Reddy Vs Kalavakuru @ Revuru Sujatha and Ors Landmark Case Not followed Guidelines in Rajnesh Vs Neha Judgment PWDV Act Sec 20 - Maintenance Order Set Aside Rajnesh Pal Naidu Vs Neha Naidu Joshi and Anr | Leave a comment

K Sreekanth Naik Vs P Nalini and Anr on 25 Apr 2024

Posted on May 3, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of Andhra Pradesh High Court held that an Order for Maintenance passed without adhering to the guidelines issued by Apex Court in Rajnesh Vs Neha is liable to be set aside.

From Para 5,

5. During the hearing, it is brought to the notice of the Court that both parties have not complied with the directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court enunciated in the judgment of Rajnesh V. Neha & Anr.,1 concerning the filing of affidavits disclosing the assets and liabilities. Considering the submissions made, I have gone through the observations in Rajnesh V. Neha (cited supra) case. The said judgment has brought revolutionary change in the procedure to be followed by the Courts in dealing with the applications filed under Chapter IX of the Cr.P.C. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has issued comprehensive procedural and normative directions streamlining the maintenance laws, inter alia, directing that the parties in a maintenance application have to file affidavits of disclosure of their assets and liabilities, which must be considered by Courts while deciding the application. It is also held that, in case of a dispute on the declaration made in the affidavits of disclosure, the aggrieved person can seek leave of the Court to serve interrogatories on the opposite side and seek production of relevant documents as provided under Order 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and in case a false statement or misrepresentation is made, the Court can initiate proceedings under section 340 of the Cr.P.C., or for Contempt of Court.

From Paras 7-14,

7. The aforesaid Judgment in the case of Rajnesh (cited supra) has been recently reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Aditi alias Mithi V. Jitesh Sharma 2 and expressing anguish over noncompliance/ improper compliance of the directions laid down in case of Rajnesh (supra) and directed re-circulation of the judgment for compliance thereof.
8. It is acknowledged that both parties have failed to submit the affidavits disclosing their assets and liabilities. Learned counsel for the Petitioner has relied on the decision of High Court of Patna in between Gitanjali Devi @ Gitanjali Kumari V. State of Bihar and another3, wherein, it is observed that the impugned order of granting maintenance amount is liable to be set aside for the reason that it has not followed the procedure prescribed by the Hon’ble Apex Court.
9. By following the principles laid down in the Aditi alias Mithi’s case cited supra, the High Court of Madras in Balram Dixit V. Smt. Kiran Dixit and another (Criminal Revision No.1255 of 2023, dated 17.01.2024) also set aside the maintenance awarded by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court,Gwalior and further directed the both parties to submit fresh affidavits of disclosure of assets and liabilities with complete particulars in compliance with the directions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court laid down in the case of Rajnesh’s case cited supra.
10. Learned counsels representing both sides submit that because of lack of proper instructions, both parties could not comply with the directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court and at present, they are ready to comply with the observations made in the judgments referred to supra, by filing the affidavits and both parties submits that the Respondent-husband is paying interim maintenance amount @ Rs.8,000/- per month vide orders dated 26.09.2019 in Crl.M.P.No.39 of 2019 in F.C.O.P.No.183 of 2018 and he is ready to pay such maintenance amount during the pendency of FCOPs and after its restoration.
11. In view of the same, this Court refrains from delving into the merits of the case at this juncture, as the impugned order passed in F.C.O.P.No.183 of 2018 is liable to be set aside for the reason that it has not followed the procedures prescribed by the Hon’ble Apex Court.
12. The impugned order passed in F.C.O.P.No.183 of 2018, is accordingly, set aside and the matter is remitted back to the learned Judge, Family Court – cum – VII Additional District Judge, Ananthapuramu for fresh consideration and by following the procedures which are laid down in the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
13. This Court further directs the both parties to submit affidavits disclosing their assets and liabilities, giving complete particulars, in accordance with the directives of the Hon’ble Apex Court as laid down in the case of Rajnesh (supra) before the Family Court. The Family Court must ensure strict adherence to these guidelines. If any of the affidavits are found to be lacking in necessary particulars, the learned Judge shall direct to produce the relevant information from the respective party.
14. The Family Court shall dispose of the F.C.O.P.No.183 of 2018 afresh after giving reasonable opportunity to both parties to let in further evidence, if any. In the meantime, the Respondent-husband is directed to pay maintenance amount of Rs.8,000/- per month to the Petitioner-wife till the disposal of the FCOP. Both parties are directed to bear their own costs.

K Sreekanth Naik Vs P Nalini and Anr on 25 Apr 2024

Disclaimer: This is a case that I handled myself for the husband. This is my first reportable judgment.


Citations: [2024 Latest Caselaw 3581 AP]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/7473550/

https://mynation.net/docs/1098-2023/

https://latestlaws.com/judgements/andhra-high-court/2024/april/2024-latest-caselaw-3581-ap


Index of Maintenance cases under section 125 CrPC is here.

Posted in High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision BNSS Sec 144 - Order for maintenance of wives children and parents Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to CrPC 125 or BNSS 144 - Order for Maintenance of Wives Children and Parents K Sreekanth Naik Vs P Nalini and Anr Landmark Case Not followed Guidelines in Rajnesh Vs Neha Judgment Rajnesh Pal Naidu Vs Neha Naidu Joshi and Anr Reportable Judgement or Order | Leave a comment

Sachin Kumar Daksh Vs Mamta Gola and Anr on 16 Feb 2024

Posted on March 14, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Delhi High Court allowed wife to file fresh affidavit in a 125 CrPC maintenance proceedings, after husband files a 340 CrPC perjury application.

From Para 8,

8. I have given considered thought to the contentions raised.
The maintenance granted to the wife is as a measure of social justice and the proceedings under Section 125 Cr.P.C. is with an objective to protect women and children from vagrancy and destitution. The Family Courts have been established for adopting and facilitating the conciliation procedure and to deal with family disputes in an expeditious and speedy manner. Section 10(3) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 provides that nothing in sub-section 1 or sub-section 2 of Section 10 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 shall prevent a Family Court from laying down its own procedure with a view to arrive at a settlement in respect of the subject matter of the suit or proceedings or at the truth of the facts alleged by one party and denied by another party. Thus, the objective remains to reach at the truth of the facts, which is a guiding star for the proceedings under the Family Courts Act. Even in terms of Section 14 of the Family Court Act, the Family Court may receive as evidence any report, statement, information or matter that may in its opinion assists it to deal effectively with the dispute, whether or not the same would be otherwise relevant or admissible under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Keeping in perspective the aforesaid objective and provisions, the technicalities cannot be permitted to prevail. The learned Family Court after appreciation of the facts correctly permitted the filing of the fresh affidavit instead of amendment of earlier affidavit to enable the parties to bring out any inconsistencies or discrepancies for consideration.

From Para 10, (Perjury proceedings are intact)

10. It may further be observed that any direction by the Trial Court to file a fresh affidavit does not obliterate the earlier affidavit filed by respondent No.1 on record. Appropriate proceedings can always be considered by the Court in accordance with law in case the Court is of the opinion that a false affidavit had been filed in the proceedings by either of the parties. The same does not in any manner adversely impact the application, if any, preferred by the petitioner under Section 340 Cr.P.C.

Sachin Kumar Daksh Vs Mamta Gola and Anr on 16 Feb 2024

Index of Perjury proceedings is here. Index of Maintenance proceedings is here.

Posted in High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision Perjury Under 340 CrPC Rajnesh Pal Naidu Vs Neha Naidu Joshi and Anr Sachin Kumar Daksh Vs Mamta Gola and Anr | Leave a comment

Chinta Vamshi Vs State of Telangana and Anr on 16 Oct 2023

Posted on November 12, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Telangana High Court held as follows:

6. On perusal of record, it is evident that neither of the parties filed their affidavits reflecting their assets and liabilities. As per the directions of the Hon’ble Apex Court, while granting maintenance, the trial Court shall receive the affidavits containing assets and liabilities of both the parties and basing on the same, the trial Court shall decide whether maintenance should be awarded or not. In the present case, the trial Court did not follow the guidelines of the Hon’ble Apex Court. Therefore, the impugned order dated 11.08.2022 is liable to be set aside.

Chinta Vamshi Vs State of Telangana and Anr on 16 Oct 2023

Index of Maintenance Judgments is here.

Posted in High Court of Telangana Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision Chinta Vamshi Vs State of Telangana and Anr Not followed Guidelines in Rajnesh Vs Neha Judgment Rajnesh Pal Naidu Vs Neha Naidu Joshi and Anr | Leave a comment

Aditi Sharma (alias Mithi) Vs Jitesh Sharma on 06 Nov 2023

Posted on November 8, 2023 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Apex Court, recorded that Trial Courts are not following Rajnesh Vs Neha Guidelines and directed the circular to be re-issued for strict adherence and compliance.

From Para 8,

8. The manner in which maintenance payable under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 or Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to be assessed, was considered by this Court in its celebrated judgment in Rajnesh v. Neha and Another, (2021) 2 SCC 324. Detailed guidelines were issued. It was noticed that the terms of maintenance are decided on the basis of pleadings of parties and on the basis of some amount of guess work. It is often seen that both the parties submit scanty material and do not disclose correct details. The tendency of the wife is to exaggerate her needs, whereas the husband tends to conceal his actual income. Keeping that in view, this Court laid down the procedure to streamline grant of maintenance. The judgments of various courts were referred to and response from various State Legal Services Authorities was sought. This Court even requested the National Legal Services Authority to submit a report on the suggestions received from the State Legal Services Authorities for framing guidelines on the affidavit of disclosure of assets and liabilities to be filed by the parties. Guidelines were issued in exercise of powers under Article 136 read with Article 142 of the Constitution of India, prescribing a uniform format of Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities to be filed in maintenance proceedings. The judgment was delivered on 04.11.2020. The affidavit was to be submitted in all maintenance proceedings including pending proceedings.

From Para 14,

14. Nothing is evident from the record or even pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant at the time of hearing that affidavits were filed by both the parties in terms of judgment of this Court in Rajnesh’s case (supra), which was directed to be communicated to all the High Courts for further circulation to all the Judicial Officers for awareness and implementation. The case in hand is not in isolation. Even after pronouncement of the aforesaid judgment, this Court is still coming across number of cases decided by the courts below fixing maintenance, either interim or final, without their being any affidavit on record filed by the parties. Apparently, the officers concerned have failed to take notice of the guidelines issued by this Court for expeditious disposal of cases involving grant of maintenance. Comprehensive guidelines were issued pertaining to overlapping jurisdiction among courts when concurrent remedies for grant of maintenance are available under the Special Marriage Act, 1954, Section 125 Cr.P.C., the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, and Criteria for determining quantum of maintenance, date from which maintenance is to be awarded, enforcement of orders of maintenance including fixing payment of interim maintenance. As a result, the litigation which should close at the trial level is taken up to this Court and the parties are forced to litigate.

From Para 16,

16. Considering the facts of the case in hand and the other similar cases coming across before this Court not adhering to the guidelines given in Rajnesh’s case (supra), we deem it appropriate to direct the Secretary General of this Court to re-circulate the aforesaid judgment not only to all the Judicial Officers through the High Courts concerned but also to the National Judicial Academy and the State Judicial Academies, to be taken note of during the training programmes as well. Ordered accordingly.

Aditi Sharma Vs Jitesh Sharma on 06 Nov 2023

Earlier ‘cryptic’ Judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court at Gwalior is below.

Jitesh Sharma Vs Aditi Sharma on 28 Jun 2023

Citations: [2023 SCC OnLine SC 1451], [2023 INSC 981], []

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/182154741/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/65570ae40c546b25c61fa465

https://legiteye.com/in-criminal-appeal-no-3446-of-2023-sc-supreme-court-directs-re-circulation-of-rajnesh-v-neha-guidelines-on-maintenance-to-ensure-adherence-in-similar-cases-justice-vikram-nath-justice-rajesh-bindal-06-11-2023/

Aditi Alias Mithi vs Jitesh Sharma on 6 November 2023

https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/aditi-alias-mithi-versus-jitesh-sharma

[Landmark Judgement] Aditi V. Jitesh Sharma (2023)

https://www.latestlaws.com/adr/case-analysis/supreme-court-orders-re-circulation-of-rajnesh-versus-neha-judgment-saying-parties-are-forced-to-litigate-where-litigation-should-close-at-trial-level-208275


Rajnesh Vs Neha case is here.


Index of Maintenance cases is here.

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Aditi Sharma (alias Mithi) Vs Jitesh Sharma Issued or Recommended Guidelines or Directions or Protocols to be followed Rajnesh Pal Naidu Vs Neha Naidu Joshi and Anr Reportable Judgement or Order | Leave a comment

Prasenjit Mukherjee Vs State of West Bengal and Ors on 02 Sep 2021

Posted on May 24, 2022 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Calcutta High Court held as follows:

On an examination of the controversy involved in the present case in the background of the law laid down in Rakesh Malhotra (supra) once it comes to the knowledge of the learned Magistrate that the marriage between the parties have been dissolved by a decree of divorce under the relevant provisions of Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act and it is found that the wife has received a lump-sum amount as onetime payment towards maintenance, what would be the procedure adopted in the following circumstances:
(a) A fresh case under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is filed.
(b) The proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was pending and the Civil Court has dissolved the marriage by decree of divorce and there was no information before the Civil Court regarding the pendency of the proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
(c) Procedure/steps to be adopted by the learned Magistrate if the proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the proceedings under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act (which has already been decided) are in different sub-divisions or different districts or different States.
As the aforesaid questions involve serious ramification so far as the proceedings under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure are concerned, I am of the view that the same is to be referred and settled by a Larger Bench (as there are conflicting judgments of this Court on the point).
Accordingly, the record of the case be placed before The Hon’ble The Chief Justice (Acting), High Court at Calcutta.

Prasenjit Mukherjee Vs State of West Bengal and Ors on 02 Sep 2021

The case was ordered to be listed but it’s been over 8 months, the Judges did not find time to look in it…

Prasenjit Mukherjee Vs State of West Bengal and Ors on 10 Sep 2021 (List Matter)
Posted in High Court of Calcutta Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged Adjustment is Permissible in Multiple Maintenances Maintenance after Mutual Consent Divorce Multiple Maintenances Orders Prasenjit Mukherjee Vs State of West Bengal and Ors Question of Law Involved Rajnesh Pal Naidu Vs Neha Naidu Joshi and Anr Referred to Large Bench | Leave a comment

Rajnesh Pal Naidu Vs Neha Naidu Joshi and Anr on 04 Nov 2020

Posted on November 4, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Rajnesh saar tried to hide his true financial status and got caught. Supreme Court became hyper and is jumping to “framing guidelines on payment of maintenance in matrimonial matters“. One bad apple, screws other good apples too… And this was passed on Sep 11th, 2019…!!!

The next hearing is scheduled on 14th October, 2019

Rajnesh Vs Neha and Anr on 11 September, 2019

Here is the earlier Bombay High Court Judgment.

Rajnesh Vs Neha and Anr on 14 August, 2018

Find the Earlier SC reportable judgment here.


Then, Supreme Court passed General Directions in regard to the menace of multiple maintenance litigation between spouses as follows.

Some crucial procedural guidelines with respect to interim maintenance proceedings…

(xi) Keeping in mind the need for a uniform format of Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities to be filed in maintenance proceedings, this Court considers it necessary to frame guidelines in exercise of our powers under Article 136 read with Article 142 of the Constitution of India :
(a) The Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities annexed at Enclosures I, II and III of this judgment, as may be applicable, shall be filed by the parties in all maintenance proceedings, including pending proceedings before the concerned Family Court / District Court / Magistrate’s Court, as the case may be, throughout the country;
(b) The applicant making the claim for maintenance will be required to file a concise application accompanied with the Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets;
(c) The respondent must submit the reply along with the Affidavit of Disclosure within a maximum period of four weeks. The Courts may not grant more than two opportunities for submission of the Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities to the respondent.
If the respondent delays in filing the reply with the Affidavit, and seeks more than two adjournments for this purpose, the Court may consider exercising the power to strike off the defence of the respondent, if the conduct is found to be wilful and contumacious in delaying the proceedings.32
On the failure to file the Affidavit within the prescribed time, the Family Court may proceed to decide the application for maintenance on basis of the Affidavit filed by the applicant and the pleadings on record;
(d) The above format may be modified by the concerned Court, if the exigencies of a case require the same. It would be left to the judicial discretion of the concerned Court, to issue necessary directions in this regard.
(e) If apart from the information contained in the Affidavits of Disclosure, any further information is required, the concerned Court may pass appropriate orders in respect thereof.
(f) If there is any dispute with respect to the declaration made in the Affidavit of Disclosure, the aggrieved party may seek permission of the Court to serve interrogatories, and seek production of relevant documents from the opposite party under Order XI of the CPC;
On filing of the Affidavit, the Court may invoke the provisions of Order X of the C.P.C or Section 165 of the Evidence Act 1872, if it considers it necessary to do so;
The income of one party is often not within the knowledge of the other spouse. The Court may invoke Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 if necessary, since the income, assets and liabilities of the spouse are within the personal knowledge of the party concerned.
(g) If during the course of proceedings, there is a change in the financial status of any party, or there is a change of any relevant circumstances, or if some new information comes to light, the party may submit an amended / supplementary affidavit, which would be considered by the court at the time of final determination.
(h) The pleadings made in the applications for maintenance and replies filed should be responsible pleadings; if false statements and misrepresentations are made, the Court may consider initiation of proceeding u/S. 340 Cr.P.C., and for contempt of Court.
(i) In case the parties belong to the Economically Weaker Sections (“EWS”), or are living Below the Poverty Line (“BPL”), or are casual labourers, the requirement of filing the Affidavit would be dispensed with.
(j) The concerned Family Court / District Court / Magistrate’s Court must make an endeavour to decide the I.A. for Interim Maintenance by a reasoned order, within a period of four to six months at the latest, after the Affidavits of Disclosure have been filed before the court.
(k) A professional Marriage Counsellor must be made available in every Family Court.

Some crucial procedural guidelines with respect to Permanent alimony

(i) Parties may lead oral and documentary evidence with respect to income, expenditure, standard of living, etc. before the concerned Court, for fixing the permanent alimony payable to the spouse.
(ii) In contemporary society, where several marriages do not last for a reasonable length of time, it may be inequitable to direct the contesting spouse to pay permanent alimony to the applicant for the rest of her life. The duration of the marriage would be a relevant factor to be taken into consideration for determining the permanent alimony to be paid.
(iii) Provision for grant of reasonable expenses for the marriage of children must be made at the time of determining permanent alimony, where the custody is with the wife. The expenses would be determined by taking into account the financial position of the husband and the customs of the family.
(iv) If there are any trust funds / investments created by any spouse / grandparents in favour of the children, this would also be taken into consideration while deciding the final child support.

Final Directions
In view of the foregoing discussion as contained in Part B – I to V of this judgment, we deem it appropriate to pass the following directions in exercise of our powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India :
(a) Issue of overlapping jurisdiction
To overcome the issue of overlapping jurisdiction, and avoid conflicting orders being passed in different proceedings, it has become necessary to issue directions in this regard, so that there is uniformity in the practice followed by the Family Courts/District Courts/Magistrate Courts throughout the country. We direct that:
(i) where successive claims for maintenance are made by a party under different statutes, the Court would consider an adjustment or set-off, of the amount awarded in the previous proceeding/s, while determining whether any further amount is to be awarded in the subsequent proceeding;
(ii) it is made mandatory for the applicant to disclose the previous proceeding and the orders passed therein, in the subsequent proceeding;
(iii) if the order passed in the previous proceeding/s requires any modification or variation, it would be required to be done in the same proceeding.
(b) Payment of Interim Maintenance
The Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities annexed as Enclosures I, II and III of this judgment, as may be applicable, shall be filed by both parties in all maintenance proceedings, including pending proceedings before the concerned Family Court / District Court / Magistrates Court, as the case may be, throughout the country.
(c) Criteria for determining the quantum of maintenance
For determining the quantum of maintenance payable to an applicant, the Court shall take into account the criteria enumerated in Part B – III of the judgment. he aforesaid factors are however not exhaustive, and the concerned Court may exercise its discretion to consider any other factor/s which may be necessary or of relevance in the facts and circumstances of a case.
(d) Date from which maintenance is to be awarded
We make it clear that maintenance in all cases will be awarded from the date of filing the application for maintenance, as held in Part B – IV above.
(e) Enforcement / Execution of orders of maintenance
For enforcement / execution of orders of maintenance, it is directed that an order or decree of maintenance may be enforced under Section 28A of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956; Section 20(6) of the D.V. Act; and Section 128 of Cr.P.C., as may be applicable. The order of maintenance may be enforced as a money decree of a civil court as per the provisions of the CPC, more particularly Sections 51, 55, 58, 60 r.w. Order XXI.

Note: In my opinion, since all these proceedings are Civil in nature (no criminal liability at all meaning No jail), no one has to bother much about the same, as no care of concern is shown to address root causes:

  1. Why do these proceedings take years together?
    • Allowance of endless adjournments
    • No strict demand for filling up of vacant Judge or magistrate posts/constituting additional Courts.
    • No Case calendar approach (passed by one of the judges in this case here), despite the name-sake tag of summary proceedings.
  2. Which husband in his sane mind, will want to live with a woman who drags him (and his family, in most cases!) to Court correctly/maliciously? Such relationship is dead for all practical purposes.
  3. If there was such neglect by husband/male person, why no legal termination of marriage is NOT invoked suo moto/automatically?

Action Item:

  • This shall be addressed in one of my future PILs here.
Rajnesh Pal Naidu Vs Neha Naidu Joshi and Anr on 04 Nov 2020

Citations: [2020 SCC ONLINE SC 903], [(2021) 1 SCC (Cri) 749], [(2021) 2 SCC 324], [(2021) 2 SCC (Civ) 220], [(2020) 11JT 558], [2020 (6) KHC 1]

Other Sources : https://indiankanoon.org/doc/117541087/

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5fa2f5f68e5f67910ddaf6ce


The HC dismissed the Crl Writ Petition challenging the Family Court Order in the 125 CrPC case.

Rajnesh Vs Neha and Anr on 14 Aug 2018

Family Court case no: Petition No. E-443/ 2013


A clarification was sought in this WP here. Order passed is given below.

Amarjeet Singh Vs Union of India on 14 Oct 2022

Another 2-judge bench of Apex Court has to Order re-circulation of above judgment in Aditi Sharma Vs Jitesh Sharma, because the Trial Court Judges stopped following Supreme Court judgement here. Exactly after 3 long years!!!


Index of all maintenance judgment is here.

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to CrPC 125 or BNSS 144 - Dont Consider Means or Education of Wife Issued or Recommended Guidelines or Directions or Protocols to be followed Landmark Case Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Multiple Maintenances Orders Rajnesh Pal Naidu Vs Neha Naidu Joshi and Anr Reportable Judgement or Order | Leave a comment

Maintenance Judgments under Section 125 CrPC [Section 144 BNSS]

Posted on May 26, 2018 by ShadesOfKnife

Listed below are few judgments which deal with maintenance for knifes under Section 125 of CrPC [now Section 144 BNSS]. Some are judgments of various courts where there are modifications done to the interim maintenance granted to Knife. The reason for this listing is to initiate Perjury proceedings against the Knife, as and when applicable. Some helpful judgements are here.

In some recent judgments of High Courts, it is being held that capable to earn is NOT equated to earning currently. Banking on this aspect only is not helpful and can be suicidal if this is the only argument victim-husband has.

Supreme Court

  1. Smt. Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav A Vs Ranantrao Shivram Adhav And … on 27 January, 1988 (When the marriage is a complete nullity in the eye of law and wife is not entitled to the benefit of Section 125 of the CrPC)
  2. Smt. Jasbir Kaur Sehgal Vs The District Judge Dehradun & Ors on 27 August, 1997 (Maintenance granted from Date of Application from Date of Order)
  3. Shahada Khatoon and Ors Vs Amjad Ali and Ors on 7 Apr 1999 (Under 125(3) CrPC, 1-year time limit is for issuance of warrant for arrest)
  4. Ruchi Agarwal Vs Amit Kumar Agrawal and Ors on 5 Nov 2004 [Once MCD done with no future claims, maintenance cannot be claimed later]
  5. Chaturbhuj Vs Sita Bai on 27 November, 2007 [who is eligible to claim maintenance u/s 125 Cr.P.C. and under what conditions]
  6. Bhushan Kumar Meen vs Mansi Meen @ Harpreet Kaur on 28 April, 2009 (Reduced from 10K to 5K)
  7. Poongadi And Anr vs Thangavel on 27 September, 2013 (Total arrears to be paid from date of filing of MC application; arrest can happen for a month maximum for each violation of monthly maintenance)
  8. Sunita Kachwaha and Ors Vs Anil Kuchwaha on 28 Oct 2014 [Wife must positively aver and prove that she is unable to maintain herself]
  9. Rajnesh Pal Naidu Vs Neha Naidu Joshi and Anr on 04 Nov 2020 [Guidelines issued to file Income, Asset and LIability affidavits before passing any Interim or Final Maintenance Orders ]
  10. Aditi Sharma Vs Jitesh Sharma on 06 Nov 2023 [Reiterated/re-circulated Rajnesh Vs Neha to all High Courts]
  11. N.Usha Rani and Anr Vs Moodudula Srinivas on 30 Jan 2025 [Second husband can be made liable to pay maintenance to Wife, even if she didn’t take divorce from her first husband]

 

Allahabad High Court

  1. Kiran Dhar Vs Alok Berman on 14 May, 2014 (No Domestic relationship as First Wife alive)
  2. Ismile @ Shama Vs State Of U.P. & Others on 22 September, 2016 (Knife able to maintain herself)
  3. Vipin Kumar Vs State of U.P. and Anr on 25 Feb 2022 (relying on Hazi, held issue of arrest warrants in not correct law in case of non payment of maintenance)
  4. Parul Tyagi Vs Gaurav Tyagi on 04 Aug 2023 [Guidelines passed in elaboration of Rajnesh Pal Naidu Vs Neha Naidu Joshi and Anr on 04 Nov 2020 and Aditi Sharma Vs Jitesh Sharma on 06 Nov 2023]
  5. Dr. Virender Kumar Vs State of UP and Anr on 16 Oct 2024 [Once there is categorical allegation of adultery against the wife (attracting Section 125(4) Cr.P.C.), then the court concerned dealing with the matter under Section 125 Cr.P.C. has to decide the issue of adultery and even interim maintenance can be awarded only after recording a finding on that issue]

 

Andhra Pradesh High Court

  1. Jangam Srinivasa Rao Vs Jaagam Rajeshwari and Anr on 13 Mar 1989 [Can claim maintenance only up to 12 months; Bad judgment as such restriction goes against execution proceedings]
  2. Moodududla Srinivas Vs Smt .N.Usha Rani on 13 April, 2017
  3. Gollamudi Ramesh Vs Modukuri Nagamani and Anr on 30 Aug 2017 [Evidence must not be taken via Affidavit as per Sec 126(2) CrPC]
  4. Borugadda Rama Devi and Ors Vs Borugadda Ravi Kumar and Anr on 26 Dec 2018 [No maintenance for Deserter wife 144(4) BNSS/125(4) CrPC]
  5. Chinta Vamshi Vs State of Telangana and Anr on 16 Oct 2023 [Follow Rajnesh Vs Neha]
  6. Gurram Sitaramaiah Vs Gurram Siva Parvathi and Ors on 08 Jan 2024 [Relied on Shahada Khatoon and Poongadi judgments; Under 125(3) CrPC, 1-year time limit is for issuance of warrant for arrest; arrest can happen for a month maximum for each violation of monthly maintenance]

Trial Courts:

  1. Byru Rajeswari Vs Byru Suresh Babu on 30 Apr 2018 (Knife failed to prove her allegations)
  2. Gadesula Radhika Vs Gadesula Rajesh on 22 Jan 2019 (Knife voluntarily left the company of husband)
  3. Palagani Samrajyam and Anr Vs Palagani Nagaraju on 30 Dec 2019 (Knife voluntarily left the company of husband)
  4. K Sreekanth Naik Vs P Nalini and Anr on 25 Apr 2024 [Follow Rajnesh Vs Neha]

 

Bombay High Court

  1. Sanjay Sudhakar Bhosale Vs Khristina on 8 April, 2008 (Cruelty not proved)
  2. Sachin Vs Sau. Sushma on 6 May, 2014 (Follow Section 421 of the Cr.P.C. first before arrest)
  3. Bhagwant Narnawre Vs Radhika Narnawre on 05 Apr 2019 (Wife is not a creditor)

 

Calcutta High Court

  1. Saikat Das Vs State of West Bengal and Anr on 27 Mar 2025 [No maintenance for Deserter wife 144(4) BNSS/125(4) CrPC]

 

Chhattisgarh High Court

  1. Rishikesh Singh Vs Kiran Gautam on 05 Sep 2014 (MCD u/s 13B of HMA does not entitle wife maintenance u/s 125 CrPC)

 

Delhi High Court Judgments

  1. Sabina Sahdev and Ors Vs Vidur Sahdev on 9 Jul 2018 [no pre-condition can be laid before receiving Appeal/Revision such as deposit maintenance amount]
  2. Rangesh Srinivasan Vs Madhulika Bawa on 07 Jun 2023 [Stay on Interim Maintenance Order without any pre-condition; relied on Sabina Sahdev and Ors Vs Vidur Sahdev on 9 Jul 2018]
  3. Zahir Obdullah and Anr Vs Omar Abdullah on 31 Aug 2023 [Interim enhanced to 1.5 lakhs from 75,000; despite the law providing, Court granted maintenance to major children!]
  4. Sachin Kumar Daksh Vs Mamta Gola and Anr on 16 Feb 2024 [Allowed Revised Income affidavit as per Rajnesh Vs Neha judgement though held that earlier affidavit is not obliterated]
  5. Megha Khetrapal Vs Rajat Kapoor on 19 Mar 2025 [No Interim Maintenance from previously working wife]

Trial Courts:

  1. Neeraj Aggarwal Vs Veeka Aggarwal on September 19, 2007 (Educated and Working Wife (even after marriage) not entitled for maintenance)

Gauhathi High Court

  1. Hazi Abdul Khaleque Vs Mustt. Samsun Nehar on 20 Aug 1990 (No arrest can be made for non-payment of maintenance u/s 125 Cr.P.C.)

 

Gujarat High Court

  1. Hemlataben Maheshbhai Chauhan Vs State of Gujarat on 21 October, 2010 (denied interim maintenance to Knife as she is already getting maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC)
  2. Varshaben Himantlal Vejani Vs State of Gujarat on 15 Jul 2016 (Spouses living separately with mutual consent so No maintenance can be allowed; Agreements against Public Policy are void)
  3. Ashokbhai Devsingbhai Chauhan Vs Taraben Ashokbhai Chauhan on 11 Nov 2019 (Wife is not a creditor)

 

Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court

  1. Showkat Aziz Zargar Vs Nabeel Showkat and Anr on 02 Sep 2022 (No maintenance to children once they attain majority, except one exception)

 

Jharkhand High Court

  1. Ramdhani Sah Vs The State of Jharkhand on 22 June, 2016 (No arrest without following sec 421 Cr.P.C.)

 

Karnataka High Court

  1. K.R.Arun vs M.Latha on 22 September, 2014 (Interim is reduced in S24 HMA, to Rs.2000/- from Rs.3000/-, until assets information is received in court)
  2. Dr. Deepak K S Vs Dr. Sowmya Sharath on 23 March, 2018
  3. Darshanik M M Vs Poornima A on 04 Dec 2023 [Not followed Guidelines passed in Rajnesh Pal Naidu Vs Neha Naidu Joshi and Anr on 04 Nov 2020 ]
  4. Y.G. Rajesh Vs M Ramya and Anr on 08 Feb 2024 [Standard deduction not to be considered as salary]
  5. K.L Rangaswamy Vs Sharadha. D on 20 Mar 2024 [Unclean hands; Liable for perjury; Interim Maintenance denial Order upheld]

 

Kerala High Court

  1. Rajesh R. Nair Vs Meera Babu on 5 Mar 2013 (Spouses living separately with mutual consent; No maintenance can be allowed)
  2. Rijas MT Vs Hafseena M on 15 Nov 2023 [No direct arrest warrant may be issued in case of failure to make maintenance payments]
  3. Abhilash.M.V Vs Soumya Soman on 10 Nov 2023 [Husband not given chance to file objections]
  4. Paul George Vs Emarin Paul on 12 Mar 2025 [No maintenance to a deserting wife]

 

Madhya Pradesh High Court

  1. Mamta Jaiswal vs Rajesh Jaiswal on 24 March, 2000 (Educated and Working Wife (even after marriage) not entitled for maintenance)
  2. Nirman Sagar Vs Monika Sagar Chaudhari and Anr on 01 Apr 2022 [No territorial jurisdiction]
  3. Balram Dixit Vs Kiran Dixit and Anr on 17 Jan 2024 [Follow Rajnesh Vs Neha]
  4. Shrikrishna Vs Sunita Bai on 02 May 2024 [Woman whose first marriage is subsisting, is not entitled to maintenance under section 125 CrPC]
  5. Shikha Vs Avaneesh Mahodaya on 10 Sep 2024 [well educated lady who also has her own source of income]

 

Madras High Court

  1. M.Chinna Karuppasamy Vs Kanimozhi on 16 Jul 2015 [No maintenance to adulterer wife]
  2. P Amutha Vs Gunsekaran on 23 Dec 2022 (Wife is not a creditor)

 

Orissa High Court

  1. Madan Kumar Satpathy Vs Priyadarshini Pati on 07 Feb 2025 [Maintenance reduced to a well-educated wife]

 

Patna High Court

  1. Laljee Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar on 16 September, 2011 (Importance of Section 421 Cr.P.C., arrest warrant in 125(3) Cr.P.C. cases)
  2. Gitanjali Devi Vs State of Bihar and Anr on 02 Dec 2023 [Follow Rajnesh Vs Neha]

 

 

Punjab and Haryana High Court

  1. Asha Rani Vs Ranjit Singh on 11 Dec 2024 [No maintenance for Educated wife]

 

Telangana High Court

  1. Ekula Sujatha Vs Ekula Rajender and Anr on 1 Jul 2024 [No maintenance for Deserter wife]

 

Uttarakhand High Court

  1. Anshu Gupta Vs Adwait Anand on 09 Aug 2023 [Mother liable to pay maintenance to minor child]

Index of all Maintenance judgments is here.

Posted in Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications | Tagged BNSS Sec 144 - Order for maintenance of wives children and parents CrPC 125 or BNSS 144 - Maintenance Denied CrPC 125 or BNSS 144 - Order for Maintenance of Wives Children and Parents CrPC 125(3) or BNSS 144(3) - No Automatic Arrest on Failure To Pay Maintenance CrPC 125(4) or BNSS 144(4) - No Maintenance or Interim To Adulterer or Deserter Wife CrPC 421 - Warrant for levy of fine Follow CrPC 421 For Maintenance Recovery Not followed Guidelines in Rajnesh Vs Neha Judgment PWDV Act Sec 29 - No pre-condition to Deposit Maintenance Arrears Rajnesh Pal Naidu Vs Neha Naidu Joshi and Anr Reportable Judgement or Order Summary Post | Leave a comment

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
bancheneproduct KV Iyyer - BHARAT 🇮🇳🇮🇱 @bancheneproduct ·
7 Jul

This is Chandra Kishore Patil from Indiranagar in #Nashik standing beside the #Godavari river. He stands here from morning till 11 pm at night with a whistle and stops people from throwing garbage into the river.

Several people behave rudely with him, but he still pursues them…

Reply on Twitter 1942223512078516640 Retweet on Twitter 1942223512078516640 5101 Like on Twitter 1942223512078516640 20728 X 1942223512078516640
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
timesalgebraind Times Algebra @timesalgebraind ·
8 Jul

🚨 RAJDEEP: Should learning Marathi be mandatory for everyone in Maharashtra?

PRIYANKA CHATURVEDI : Absolutely, Yes !!

RAJDEEP: But, Do you speak Marathi yourself? 😅

PRIYANKA: My Marathi is weak. I tried learning French, couldn’t manage. Tried Braj Bhasha, didn’t succeed…

Reply on Twitter 1942677075439370456 Retweet on Twitter 1942677075439370456 2217 Like on Twitter 1942677075439370456 16594 X 1942677075439370456
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
autismcapital Autism Capital 🧩 @autismcapital ·
9 Jul

Grok engineers: "It said what?"💀

Reply on Twitter 1942760858570109050 Retweet on Twitter 1942760858570109050 6643 Like on Twitter 1942760858570109050 128126 X 1942760858570109050
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
theskindoctor13 THE SKIN DOCTOR @theskindoctor13 ·
8 Jul

Kaushalya Devi, 66, had a routine, every morning, she would visit the nearby Ardh-narishwar temple in Dehradun.

This Sunday, during the same routine, two Rottweilers from a neighbour’s house jumped the wall and mauled her. Two fractured bones, multiple lacerations, 200+…

Reply on Twitter 1942562230840467582 Retweet on Twitter 1942562230840467582 2890 Like on Twitter 1942562230840467582 8761 X 1942562230840467582
Load More

Recent Posts

  • Cases where Perjury Proceedings were initiated July 3, 2025
  • Dara Lakshmi Narayana and 6 Ors Vs State of Telangana and Anr on 10 Dec 2024 June 27, 2025
  • Mohammad Wajid and Anr Vs State of U.P. and Ors on 08 Aug 2023 June 26, 2025
  • Ajay Rajendra Khare and Ors Vs State of Maharashtra on 10 Jun 2025 June 26, 2025
  • BSA Sec 128 – Communications during marriage June 25, 2025

Most Read Posts

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

Tags

Reportable Judgement or Order (405)2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision (375)Landmark Case (369)Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes (367)1-Judge Bench Decision (294)Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to (274)Work-In-Progress Article (216)3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision (97)Sandeep Pamarati (93)Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty (77)Issued or Recommended Guidelines or Directions or Protocols to be followed (68)Perjury Under 340 CrPC (60)Absurd Or After Thought Or Baseless Or False Or General Or Inherently Improbable Or Improved Or UnSpecific Or Omnibus Or Vague Allegations (58)Reprimands or Setbacks to YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh (49)Summary Post (44)HM Act 13 - Divorce Granted to Husband (42)Legal Terrorism (41)Not Authentic copy hence to be replaced (40)CrPC 482 - Quash (39)Divorce granted on Cruelty ground (39)

Categories

Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification (718)Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments (319)High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (179)High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification (141)High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification (107)High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification (86)High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification (66)General Study Material (55)Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications (50)High Court of Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification (50)High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification (50)Prakasam DV Cases (46)LLB Study Material (46)District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification (43)Judicial Activism (for Public Benefit) (42)High Court of Kerala Judgment or Order or Notification (39)High Court of Madhya Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (36)High Court of Gujarat Judgment or Order or Notification (28)High Court of Telangana Judgment or Order or Notification (26)High Court of Calcutta Judgment or Order or Notification (23)

Recent Comments

  • Risha Bhatnagar on Pitchika Lakshmi Vs Pichika Chenna Mallikaharjuana Rao on 24 Dec 2012
  • ShadesOfKnife on Index of all Summary Case Law Pages on Shades of Knife
  • kanwal Kishore Girdhar on Index of all Summary Case Law Pages on Shades of Knife
  • SUBHASH KUMAR BANSAL on Sukhdev Singh Vs Sukhbir Kaur on 12 Feb 2025
  • ShadesOfKnife on Syed Nazim Husain Vs Additional Principal Judge Family Court & Anr on 9 January, 2003

Archives of SoK

  • July 2025 (1)
  • June 2025 (15)
  • May 2025 (3)
  • April 2025 (10)
  • March 2025 (7)
  • February 2025 (8)
  • January 2025 (1)
  • December 2024 (3)
  • November 2024 (4)
  • October 2024 (16)
  • September 2024 (15)
  • August 2024 (14)
  • July 2024 (11)
  • June 2024 (18)
  • May 2024 (13)
  • April 2024 (9)
  • March 2024 (23)
  • February 2024 (15)
  • January 2024 (11)
  • December 2023 (11)
  • November 2023 (9)
  • October 2023 (13)
  • September 2023 (12)
  • August 2023 (15)
  • July 2023 (17)
  • June 2023 (11)
  • May 2023 (6)
  • April 2023 (5)
  • March 2023 (10)
  • February 2023 (9)
  • January 2023 (12)
  • December 2022 (12)
  • November 2022 (8)
  • October 2022 (13)
  • September 2022 (17)
  • August 2022 (10)
  • July 2022 (21)
  • June 2022 (27)
  • May 2022 (23)
  • April 2022 (32)
  • March 2022 (17)
  • February 2022 (6)
  • January 2022 (2)
  • December 2021 (7)
  • November 2021 (7)
  • October 2021 (6)
  • September 2021 (10)
  • August 2021 (31)
  • July 2021 (45)
  • June 2021 (17)
  • May 2021 (17)
  • April 2021 (18)
  • March 2021 (58)
  • February 2021 (14)
  • January 2021 (50)
  • December 2020 (35)
  • November 2020 (68)
  • October 2020 (67)
  • September 2020 (28)
  • August 2020 (41)
  • July 2020 (20)
  • June 2020 (36)
  • May 2020 (40)
  • April 2020 (38)
  • March 2020 (26)
  • February 2020 (43)
  • January 2020 (35)
  • December 2019 (34)
  • November 2019 (4)
  • October 2019 (18)
  • September 2019 (57)
  • August 2019 (33)
  • July 2019 (12)
  • June 2019 (18)
  • May 2019 (5)
  • April 2019 (19)
  • March 2019 (58)
  • February 2019 (11)
  • January 2019 (90)
  • December 2018 (97)
  • November 2018 (43)
  • October 2018 (31)
  • September 2018 (73)
  • August 2018 (47)
  • July 2018 (143)
  • June 2018 (92)
  • May 2018 (97)
  • April 2018 (59)
  • March 2018 (8)

Blogroll

  • Daaman Promoting Harmony 0
  • Fight against Legal Terrorism Fight against Legal Terrorism along with MyNation Foundation 0
  • Good Morning Good Morning News 0
  • Insaaf India Insaaf Awareness Movement 0
  • MyNation Hope Foundation Wiki 0
  • MyNation.net Equality, Justice and Harmony 0
  • Sarvepalli Legal 0
  • Save Indian Family Save Indian Family Movement 0
  • SIF Chandigarh SIF Chandigarh 0
  • The Male Factor The Male Factor 0
  • Unitedmen Foundation a dedicated community forged with the mission to unite men facing legal challenges in marital disputes. 0
  • Vaastav Foundation The Social Reality 0
  • Vinayak my2centsworth – This blog is for honest law abiding men, married or planning to get married 0
  • Voice4india Indian Laws, Non-profits, Environment 0
  • Writing Law Writing Law by Ankur 0

RSS Cloudflare Status

  • CGK (Jakarta) on 2025-07-16 July 16, 2025
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Jul 16, 19:00 - 23:00 UTCJul 3, 06:02 UTCUpdate - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in CGK (Jakarta) datacenter on 2025-07-16 between 19:00 and 23:00 UTC.Traffic might be re-routed from this location, hence there is a possibility of a slight increase in latency during this maintenance window for end-users […]
  • AKL (Auckland) on 2025-07-15 July 15, 2025
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Jul 15, 13:00 - 19:00 UTCJul 10, 03:29 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in AKL (Auckland) datacenter on 2025-07-15 between 13:00 and 19:00 UTC.Traffic might be re-routed from this location, hence there is a possibility of a slight increase in latency during this maintenance window for end-users […]
  • SOF (Sofia) on 2025-07-15 July 15, 2025
    THIS IS A SCHEDULED EVENT Jul 15, 01:00 - 04:00 UTCJul 2, 14:35 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in SOF (Sofia) datacenter on 2025-07-15 between 01:00 and 04:00 UTC.Traffic might be re-routed from this location, hence there is a possibility of a slight increase in latency during this maintenance window for end-users […]

RSS List of Spam Server IPs from Project Honeypot

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

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

pixel