Hindu Personal Laws are codified into the following four (4) laws.
Tag: Summary Post
Index of all Summary Case Law Pages on Shades of Knife
This can be considered as a sitemap of all Summary pages on my site, Shades of Knife.
Delivery of Justice
- All Bare Acts of India here.
- All Compulsory Registration of Marriage in India – Both Acts and Rules here.
- All Dowry related case laws here.
- All Dowry Harassment Judgments under Section 498A of IPC here.
- All Bigamy Judgments under Sections 494 and 495 of IPC here.
- All Matters related to Exemption from Personal Appearance (u/s 205 CrPC) here.
- All Bail Matters here.
- All Condone Delay Judgments here.
- All Transfer Petition Judgments here.
- All Look Out Circular Decisions here.
- All Compensation Judgments for Motor Vehicle Accidents or other mishaps here.
- All Defamation Judgments here.
- All Domestic Violence Judgments here.
- All Divorce Judgments here.
- All Maintenance Judgments here.
- All Acquittal from Criminal Matrimonial Cases here.
- All Perjury Judgments here.
- All Discharge Judgments u/s 227 Cr.P.C. here.
- All Discharge Judgments u/s 239 Cr.P.C. here.
- All Quash Judgment u/s 482 Cr.P.C. here.
- All Amicable ways of working with Advocates here.
- All Life Cycles of various cases here.
- All Passport Judgments here.
- All Contempt of Court Judgments here.
- All Legal templates and Drafting here.
- All Antics of Bar Council of India or State Bar Councils here.
Administration of Justice:
- All Protection from Police High-handedness here.
- All Reliefs from Judiciary here.
- All publicly available legal research tools here.
- All Video Conferencing Guidelines of Courts in India here.
- Usage of A4 sheets with Double-Sided Printing for all purposed in Court here.
- eCourts Project
- AI-based Legalbots
- Various rights covered under Article 21 (Protection of life and personal liberty) of Constitution of India here.
- Staff on Administration of Justice, such as Registry Staff can not exercise Judicial functions such as deciding/dismissing applications/petitions based on their maintainability. See here.
- All Legal strategies and Defence here.
- All Law Concepts explained here.
Personal Interest
- All Legal Goals to Achieve under Judicial Activism (Via Public Interest Litigation) here.
- All Decisions of High Courts to be made applicable in Other High Courts under Article 227 of the Constitution of India here.
- All false cases laid on me [Sandeep Pamarati Vs Ungrateful Knife] here.
Dowry Prohibition Act Judgments
Here are a collection of judgment pertaining to Dowry Prohibition Act 1961 and other cases involving Dowry element.
- Sarla Prabhakar Waghmare Vs State of Maharashtra And Others on 10 April 1989 [SC:Cruelty should be such that, as to make woman commit harm to herself]
- Sankar Prasad Shaw and Ors Vs The State and Anr on 27 Jul 1990 [CalHC: Agreement is prerequisite for Sec 4 conviction]
- Arjun Dhondiba Kamble and Ors Vs The State of Maharashtra on 14 February 1992 [BomHC: Any property demanded not in connection of marriage is not dowry]
- Harikumar Vs State of Karnataka on 22 October 1993 [SC: Section 8A of Dowry Prohibition Act is not unconstitutional]
- Shamnsaheb M. Multtani Vs State of Karnataka on 24 January 2001 [Presumption does not let Prosecution free from establishing their case before burden of proof shifts to accused]
- Pandurang Shivram Kawathkar Vs State of Maharashtra on 5 February 2001 [BomHC: Dowry demand is made out anytime before, during or after marriage, as long it is in connection with marriage]
- State of U.P Vs Santosh Kumar and Ors on 3 Sep 2009 [SC: Giving dowry under demand is a crime u/s 3 of DP Act read with Sec 2 of the DP Act]
- Pooja Saxena vs State and Anr on 20 October 2010 [DHC: Dowry giver is protected from prosecution]
- Sharanappa S. Kallur Vs State of Karnataka on 07 Jun 2011 [KarHC: Relies on this case here]
- Uma Devi Vs State and Anr on 01 Aug 2011 [DHC: Dowry giver is protected from prosecution]
- Vipin Jaiswal Vs State of A.P. on 13 March 2013 (Overruled)
- Manjunath Eshwar Vs State of TN on 16 Apr 2013 [MadHC: Relies on SC decision State of U.P Vs Santosh Kumar and Ors here]
- Surinder Singh Vs State of Haryana on 13 November 2013 [Demand for dowry in connection with marriage was available so, Dowry Demand allegation is made out]
- Gunakala Durga Rani Vs Gunakala Sudhakar on 6 January 2015 [Dowry not proved in a DV Case]
- Rajinder Singh Vs State of Punjab on 26 February 2015 [Landmark: Demand for dowry in connection with marriage]
- Sudha Vs State (NCT of Delhi) on 4 January 2016 []
- Chembeti Srilakshmi Vs Chembeti Sreenu on 7 January, 2016 [Dowry element is time-barred due to AP DP Rules 1998]
- Shaik Mehataj @ Jareena Vs Shaik Humayun on 3 October, 2016 []
- Korimerla Videesha Vs State of A.P. and Anr on 12 October, 2018 [Invoked AP DP Rules 1998]
- Shivendra Raizada and Others Vs State of U.P. and Anr on 6 December 2018 [Gifts are not Dowry]
- M. Sudarshan Goud and Ors Vs The State of AP on 24 April 2020 [Dowry should either be given or agreed to be given at or before or after the marriage in connection with the marriage]
- Rajesh Chaddha Vs State of Uttar Pradesh on 13 May 2025 [SC : Vague and omnibus allegations cannot sustain a conviction under Section 498A IPC and Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.]
Bare Act, Amendments, Rules etc
Dowry Prohibition Act here.
State-enacted Rules are here.
MASTER SITEMAP here.
Frequently Asked Questions – Dowry Prohibition Act (DPA) Jurisprudence in India
The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 is a special law enacted to prohibit the giving, taking, or demanding of dowry at the time of marriage or afterward. It criminalizes dowry practices and provides for penalties, including imprisonment and fines, to deter society from this social evil.
Under the Act, dowry means any property or valuable security given, taken, or demanded as a condition for marriage. This includes cash, gifts, ornaments, vehicles, real estate, or any other valuable items provided to the bride or groom’s family. Any demand for additional gifts or money after marriage is also treated as dowry.
In addition to the Dowry Prohibition Act, other penal provisions are often invoked in dowry cases, including:
- Section 498A IPC – Cruelty by husband or relatives
- Section 304B IPC – Dowry death
- Section 34 IPC – Common intention
These sections are commonly applied in conjunction to address cruelty, harassment, and fatal incidents related to dowry demands.
Yes. The demand for dowry alone is an offence under the Act. Even if the dowry is not physically delivered, the mere act of demanding money or valuables in connection with marriage amounts to an offence and attracts legal consequences.
Yes. The law recognizes that dowry harassment may involve multiple persons. Therefore, relatives of the husband, such as in-laws, can also be prosecuted if they actively participate in demanding or pressuring the bride for dowry.
Punishment varies depending on the severity:
- Simple dowry demand may attract imprisonment and a fine.
- In cases of dowry death (death within 7 years of marriage due to dowry harassment), enhanced punishment under Section 304B IPC is applied.
Courts have often noted that dowry offences are serious and socially harmful, justifying strict penalties.
Bail is not automatic in dowry-related offences, especially under serious sections like 304B IPC or when there is strong evidence of cruelty or death. However, both anticipatory bail and regular bail may be considered based on the facts, severity, and compliance with investigation procedures.
Yes. A fair trial entails examination and cross-examination of witnesses. Courts have emphasized that complainants and accused both must be afforded a chance to be heard, and evidence must be tested impartially during trial proceedings.
Refusal to have sexual relations alone does not constitute dowry harassment. However, when such refusal is coupled with coercion, cruelty, or demand for dowry, it may form part of evidence for cruelty under Section 498A IPC or for establishing harassment in dowry practice cases.
Yes. Dowry death convictions have been upheld on circumstantial evidence, especially where:
- Death occurs within 7 years of marriage,
- There is proof of harassment, cruelty, and dowry demand,
- The conduct of the accused suggests involvement.
Courts have clarified that even in the absence of direct evidence, consistent and cogent circumstantial evidence can lead to conviction.
Medical and forensic evidence often play a critical role, especially in dowry death cases. Courts rely on autopsy reports, injury examinations, and forensic findings to build the prosecution’s case on cause of death, timing of injuries, and whether they align with alleged cruelty or harassment.
Once a dowry-related FIR is registered and investigation begins, the prosecution proceeds in the name of the State, not the complainant. Therefore, withdrawal of an FIR depends on court approval and merits under Section 439/482 CrPC, and is not solely at the complainant’s discretion.
Supreme Court mandates use of A4 sheets With Double-Sided Printing for all usages from 01 April 2020
The Supreme Court has finally approved the use of A4 size papers for filing documents, with printing on both the sides. The news is here and the circular is below.
For Internal Communications of Registry with Court
… and…
For all communications between Registry, Court, Advocates and litigants
Three law students write to CJI, want legal size paper ditched for A4.
Link here.
Supreme Court was not interested to direct other Constitutional Courts and Tribunals to shift to A4 paper usage.
Link here.
The following High Courts also followed the Supreme Court in this regard.
Allahabad HC
The news is here and Order passed in the Writ filed in this regard is below.
…
The Registry had taken a decision on this. The Rulebooks are to be revised basis this decision soon.
…
The Rules of the High Court are amended to incorporate the new paper size. The news is here.
Andhra Pradesh HC
The news is here and Notice is below
Bombay HC
The news is here and Notice is below (only applicable to all High Court benches; not to sub-ordinate courts in the State)
Calcutta HC
The news is here and Notice is below
Delhi HC
The PIL news is here. Actual news is here.
Here is the revised Practice direction…
Gauhati HC
The news is here and the Notification is below
Gujarat HC
The news is here
Himachal Pradesh HC
The direction is below
Jharkhand HC
The news is here
Karnataka HC
The news is here. Here is the Judgment from CJ Karnataka
Kerala HC
The news is here and Notification is below.
…and…
later news is here and the notification is below.
Madhya Pradesh HC
The news is here
Madras HC
The news is here.
Manipur HC
The Notification is below.
Orissa HC
The said Order is below.
The High Court Notification is below.
Next HC
The news is here
Rajasthan HC
The news is here. Notice got issued to Registrar, HC
Tripura HC
The news is here and Order is below.
Telangana HC
The news is here and Circular is below.
Uttarakhand HC
The news is here.
The Notification of HC Rules 2020 below.
MASTER SITEMAP here.
498A IPC Judgments
Here I will list all judgments both from Supreme Court of India and Various High Courts that may be used in the false cases filed u/s 498A IPC
Once you get hold of your case documents on First date of appearance in Court, see if there are any possible grounds to come out of false cases. This is possible in 2 ways.
- By filing a Discharge Petition u/s 239 CrPC at the Trial Court where this false 498A IPC case is filed.
- By filing a Quash Petition u/s 482 CrPC at the High Court in that State, where this false 498A IPC case is filed.
This page here contains the provisions available under the above provisions along with Judgments.
Supreme Court Judgments
- Girdhar Shankar Tawade Vs State of Maharashtra on 24 Apr 2002
- Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra on 11 Nov 2010
MASTER SITEMAP here.
Defamation Judgments
Here I list the landmark judgments from High Courts of India and Supreme Court of India.
1920-1925
- Gopal Naidu and another Vs King-Emperor on 22 December 1922 (Bombay High Court: the purpose of the codified statute is that on any point specifically dealt with by it the law shall be ascertained by interpreting the language used; the Court is not entitled to invoke the Common Law of England in the matter of defamation)
1926-1930
- Tiruvengada Mudali Vs Tripurasundari Ammal on 15 February 1926 (Madras High Court: the defamatory matter contained in the plaint are accusations in nature and they do not have absolute privilege but only qualified privilege as provided by sec 499 of IPC)
1931-1935
1936-1940
1941-1945
1946-1950
1951-1955
1956-1960
1961-1965
- Thangavelu Chettiar Vs Ponnammal on 1 November, 1965 (Madras High Court: the defamatory matter contained in the plaint was admittedly signed and filed by the petitioner. There can be no doubt that there was publication of the defamatory matter)
1966-1970
- M.C. Verghese Vs T.J. Ponnan and Anr on 13 November 1968 (Supreme Court of India: at common law there had never been a separate principle or rule that communications between a husband and wife during marriage were inadmissible in evidence on the ground of public policy.)
1971-1975
- Balraj Khanna and Ors Vs Moti Ram on 22 Apr 1971 (Supreme Court of India: as far as possible the words spoken or the statements actually made and which he alleges to be defamatory are before the court)
1976-1980
- Surinder Mohan Vikal Vs Ascharaj Lal Chopra on 28 Feb 1978 (defamation has to be filed with in time limitation as per 468 CrPC)
1996-2000
- Mukund Martand Chitnis Vs Madhuri Mukund Chitnis And on 23 April 1991 ()
- Dr. J.Sudarshan Vs R.Sankaran on 16 August, 1991 (Madras High Court: The Civil Court would confine its decision to the trespass, threat of injury and damage by the servants, agents and workmen of the various defendants and the entitlement of token damages by the respondent, while the criminal Court, the passage being per se defamatory, would proceed to find out whether any one of the 10 Exceptions to S. 499, I.P.C. would apply.)
- Shatrughna Prasad Sinha Vs Rajbhau Surajmal Rathi and Ors on 10 September 1996 (SC: Statements made were not defamatory)
2001-2005
2006-2010
- M.K.Prabhakaran and Anr Vs T.E.Gangadharan and Anr on 7 March, 2006 (Kerala HC: ‘Once a statement has been filed in a court of law, that statement can be taken as published and if such a statement amounts to per se defamatory, it is the duty of the accused to establish that they are justified in making such a statement under any of the exceptions to Section 499 I.P.C.‘)
- Japani Sahoo Vs Chandra Sekhar Mohanty on 27 Jul 2007 (SC: Limitation u/s 468 starts from the date of making the complaint and not on the date the cognizance was taken)
- Dayanand Rao Rangadal Vs Suresh and Ors on 14 August, 2008 (Karnataka High Court: “a written statement is a public document” and “a criminal proceeding can be initiated when a civil proceeding is ongoing”)
- Anubhav Gupta Vs State of Rajasthan on 5 October 2009 (At SC, all cases quashed, after settlement)
2011-2015
- Ms.Romy Khanna Vs State (Govt of NCT of Delhi) on 4 Jul 2011 (Defamation was filed after 3 years – Time barred)
- Gambhirsinh R.Dekare Vs Falgunbhai Chimanbhai Patel and Anr on 11 March 2013 (SC held allegation to the effect who authorised printing of defamatory statements is sufficient)
- Mr M Vs Mrs M on 7 February 2014 (Bombay HC: Divorce for husband due to mental cruelty via defamation by knife)
- Priyanka Srivastava and Anr Vs State of UP and Ors on 19 March, 2015 (Procedure for filing non-cognizable cases defined by Dipak Misra)
- Rajdeep Sardesai Vs State Of A.P on 14 May 2015 (SC dismissed Quash against AP HC Order)
- S.R.Sukumar Vs S.Sunaad Raghuram on 2 July 2015 (At SC: Amendment allowed in complaint)
2016-2020
- Subramanian Swamy Vs Union of India on 13 May, 2016 (Supreme Court: IPC 499 and 500 and CrPC 199 are Constitutionally valid)
- Deepak Kumar @ Deepak Saha Vs Hindustan Media Ventrues Ltd and Ors on 06 July 2017 (Delhi HC: No territorial jurisdiction)
- Mahadev I Todale Vs Frankfinn Aviation Services Pvt Ltd and Ors on 10 July 2017 (Delhi HC:)
- E.Krishna and Ors Vs Srinivasa Chary on 17 November 2017 (AP HC: Not defamation)
- X Vs Y on 2 November, 2018 (Bombay HC: Impotent word is Defamatory)
- M.K.Varghese Cor Episcopa Vs State of Kerala on 08 January, 2020 (Kerala High Court: Complaint of defamation cannot be quashed under section 482 CrPC, as it does not have absolute privilege and only qualified privilege)
- Rabindra Nath Pal Vs Ratikanta Paul and Ors on 6 Mar 2020 (Defamation was filed after 3 years – Time barred)
MASTER SITEMAP here.
Domestic Violence Judgments
Here is a list of Judgments under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 and various facets of violence/cruelty within Matrimonial relationships under various Statutes even before this Act. Life Cycle of a Domestic Violence case under PWDV Act 2005 here.
Bare Act (along with Statement of Objects and Reasons) is here and Rules are here. A 2-judge bench of Supreme Court passed guidelines to handle multiple maintenance litigation here.
1971-1980
- Narayan Ganesh Dastane Vs Sucheta Narayan Dastane on 19 March, 1975 [Definition of Mental Cruelty; Burden of Proof; Proof beyond reasonable doubt; Condonation of Cruelty]
1981-1990
1991-2000
- V.Bhagat Vs D.Bhagat on 19 November, 1993 [defined the meaning of Mental Cruelty with respect to Divorce petition]
2001-2005
- MS. Bhaskar Industries Ltd Vs MS. Bhiwani Denim and Apparels Ltd and Ors on 27 August 2001 [SC: Not a DV case but talks about Interlocutory Order]
2006-2010
- Lata Singh Vs State of U.P. and Another on 7 July, 2006 (Right to Marry a person of one’s choice)
- S.R. Batra and Anr Vs Taruna Batra on 15 December, 2006 (Supreme Court defined ‘Shared Household‘)
- Samar Ghosh vs Jaya Ghosh on 26 March, 2007 (Mental Cruelty defined)
- Abhijit Bhikaseth Auti Vs State Of Maharashtra and Anr on 16 September, 2008 [BomHC: Before granting an interim relief under sub-section 1, an opportunity of being heard is required to be granted to the respondent.]
- V.K.Vijayalekshmi Amma Vs Bindu V on 2 Dec 2009 ()
- Krishnamurthy Nookula Vs Savitha Y on 9 December, 2009 [KarHC: Audi Alterum Partem, Magistrate must conduct Inquiry in the nature of summary trial before Interim Maintenance]
- Vijay Verma Vs State NCT of Delhi and Anr on 13 August, 2010 (Delhi High Court)
- Jovita Olga Ignesia Mascarenhase Coutinho Vs Rajan Maria Coutinho and Anr on 24 Aug 2010 (BHC: Frame Issues after Hearing Both Parties)
- Rachna Kathuria Vs Ramesh Kathuria on 30 August, 2010 (DelHC: From my favorite judge but bad judgment; deny maintenance in DVC as there was maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC)
- Hemlataben Maheshbhai Chauhan Vs State of Gujarat on 21 October, 2010 [GujHC: Since wife was already getting maintenance under Section 125 of CrPC, Court denied interim maintenance in DVC]
2011-2015
- Sandhya Manoj Wankhade Vs Manoj Bhimrao Wankhade and Ors on 31 January 2011 (Women can also be made respondents)
- Dhaval Rajendrabhai Soni Vs Bhavini Dhavalbhai Soni and Ors on 04 Feb 2011 [GHC: Custody cannot be given to non-custodial parents under DV Act; Only visitation permissible to non-custodial parent]
- Inderjit Singh Grewal Vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 23 August, 2011 (1 year limitation of 468 CrPC applies to DV Cases)
- V.D. Bhanot Vs Savita Bhanot on 07 February 2012 (DV Conduct of parties prior to PWDV Act are to be considered; Mental Cruelty)
- Buravilli Siva Madhuri Vs Sri Buravilli Satya Venkata Lakshmana Rao and Ors on 25 September, 2012 (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
- Deoki Panjhiyara Vs Shashi Bhushan Narayan Azad and Anr on 12 Dec 2012 [SC: Unless there is a declaration of nullity/void of the marriage by a competent Court or authority, a aggrieved person can take advantage of benefits under DV Act.]
- Ashish Dixit and Ors Vs State of U.P. and Anr on 7 January, 2013 (Quashing of false DVC on relatives of husband)
- Mewa Singh and others Vs Sukhjeet Kaur on 29 April 2013 (PHHC: appearance of respondents disposed off)
- Markapuram Siva Rao & Others Vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 30 April, 2013 (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
- Indra Sarma vs V.K.V.Sarma on 26 November, 2013 (SC: No relationship in the nature of marriage, no DV can apply, No maintenance)
- Kolli Babi Sarojini And Others Vs Kolli Jayalaxmi And Another on 29 April, 2014 (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
- Koushik Vs. Sau. Sangeeta Koushik Gharami & ors on 05 May 2014 [BomHC: No DV, No Reliefs; not even for children]
- Ayishabi Vs Shahul Hameed on 16 July, 2014 (KerHC: Dispose within 3 months)
- Santosh Sashkant Dhonde Vs Sarika Santosh Dhonde and Ors on 11 September, 2014 [BomHC: Hearing before Interim Orders]
- Chandra Sukanya Devi Vs Chandra Srinivasulu on 18 November, 2014 (JMFC Court, Ongole, Andhra Pradesh)
- A.K. Srinivasa Rao and 3 Ors Vs State of AP on 19 January, 2015 (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
- P.Sugunamma And Others Vs State Of A.P. on 19 January, 2015 (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
- Giduthuri Kesari Kumar And Others Vs State of Telangana on 16 February 2015 (APHC: 2 grounds for quashing a DV Case, No shared household, any other case dismissed on same allegations; overruled by SC in Prabha Tyagi here)
- Boddu Anjali and Anr Vs Boddu Annapoornamma and Ors on 17 June, 2015 [Ongole JCJC:]
- Gaddameedi Nagamani Vs The State Of Telangana on 17 July, 2015 (APHC: If any application is filed under Rule 37 of Criminal Rules of Practice or under Section 126(2) or Section 205 to represent through special vakalat or through advocate or for one to represent others as the case may be, the learned Magistrate shall entertain, hear and pass appropriate orders granting the same with necessary conditions)
- Rajkishore Shukla Vs Asha Shukla on 22 September, 2015 (Madhya Pradesh High Court)
- Krishna Bhatacharjee vs Sarathi Choudhury And Anr on 20 November, 2015 (Dipak Misra says, Judicially separated folks are also within the ambit of Aggrieved person)
2016-2020
- Kunapareddy @ Nookala Shanka Balaji Vs Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari On 18 April, 2016 (Court can allow amendments to complaint/petition, before cognizance of same is taken by Court)
- Prakash Nagardas Dubal-Shaha Vs Meena Prakash Dubal Shah and Ors on 22 April 2016 (Unsuccessful divorce proceedings cannot adversely affect the maintainability of DVC)
- Monojit Banerjee Vs Shalini Banerjee on 3 October, 2016 [KarHC: Hold an inquiry and then recorded finding as to grant interim relief or not]
- Hiral P Harsora and Ors Vs Kusum Narottamdas Harsora and Ors on October 6, 2016 [Supreme Court strikes down words ‘adult male‘ from the definition of Respondent u/s 2(q) and also the proviso to sec 2(q)]
- Dinesh Kumar Yadav Vs State of U.P and Anr on 27 Oct 2016 [AllHC: A Revision under Section 397/401 of Cr P C against a judgment and order passed by the Court of Sessions under
Section 29 of the Act, 2005 is maintainable] - Yadlapalli Mary Mani Vs The State Of Andhra Pradesh on 21 December, 2016 (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
- Girish Kumar Suneja Vs CBI on 13 Jul 2017 [SC: Not a DV case but talks about final, intermediate and Interlocutory Orders]
- Manmohan Attavar Vs Neelam Manmohan Attavar on 14 July, 2017 (SC: ‘Domestic Relationship’ Necessary To Permit A Party To Occupy ‘Shared Household’)
- Kuppusamy Vs Radhika on 21 July, 2017 (MadHC: Dispose DVC in 2 months)
- Santineer Vincent Rajkumar Vs R.Rejitha on 3 August, 2017 (Andhra Pradesh High Court)
- Jallarapu Laxman Rao Vs Jallarapu Pedda Venkateswarlu on 1 November, 2017 (AP HC: No Revision u/s 397/401 CrPC, as Sec 29 PWDV Act provides Revision/Appeal)
- Sushila Devi Vs Vikas Kumar Singhal And Ors on 9 Feb 2018 (RajHC: Dispose within 2 months)
- S Vs J on 17 Apr 2018 (DHC: Frame issues after hearing both parties)
- Ashmin Kashmiri Vs Pushkar Kashmiri on 04 Jul 2018 (HPHC: No DV, No Reliefs; not even for children)
- Sabina Sahdev and Ors Vs Vidur Sahdev on 9 Jul 2018 [DHC: no pre-condition can be laid before receiving Appeal/Revision such as deposit maintenance amount]
- Lalita Toppo Vs State of Jharkhand on 30 October 2018 (Live-in partner can also file DV case)
- Shalu Ojha and Prashant Ojha case (File income affidavit as Prescribed in Kusum Sharma)
- Sangita Saha Vs Abhijit Saha and Ors on 28 January, 2019 (SC: No DV, No Reliefs)
- Upheld Abhijit Saha and Ors Vs Sangita Saha on 17 September, 2015 (CalHC: No DV, No Reliefs)
- Ajay Kumar Vs Lata @ Sharuti on 08 April 2019 (BIL pays interim maintenance)
- Tillottama Kumari Vs State of Bihar and Ors on 16 May 2019 (PatHC: Dispose DVC in 6 weeks)
- Kamlesh Devi Vs Jaipal and Ors on 04 Oct 2019 (SC: No allegations of domestic violence; No shared household)
- NS Leelavathi Vs R Shilpa Brunda on 11 December, 2019 (Karnataka High Court)
- Prakash Vinayak Gaikwad and Ors Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr on 13 Feb 2020 [BomHC: No Shared household, so no domestic relationship so no DVC maintainable on family members]
- N.Prasad Vs Harithalakshmi on 20 Jul 2020 (1 year limitation of 468 CrPC applies to DV Cases)
- Latha.P.C and Ors Vs State of Kerala and Ors on 15 Sep 2020 (482 CrPC against DVC is not maintainable; Magistrate u/s 28(2) can apply judicial mind of Preliminary objections)
- Afia Rasheed Khan Vs Mazharuddin Ali Khan and Anr on 10 Oct 2022 (SC: Upheld BHC Judgment stating casual visits/stays do not qualify as temporary stay)
- Satish Chander Ahuja Vs Sneha Ahuja on 15 Oct 2020 (SC: Overruled SR Batra judgment regd Shared Household concept; but also emphasized on the alternate accommodation)
- S.Vanitha Vs Deputy Commissioner on 15 Dec 2020 ()
2021-2025
- Dr.P.Pathmanathan and Ors Vs V.Monica and Anr on 18 Jan 2021 ()
- Masood Khan Vs. Millie Hazarika on 04 Mar 2021 (482 CrPC against DVC is maintainable as per Satish Chander)
- Maya and Ors Vs State of U.P. and Ors on 19 Mar 2021 (AllHC: Dispose DVC in 2 months)
- Puttaraju Vs Shivakumari on 01 Apr 2021 (MHC: Time limitation applies only for offence u/s 31 but not for the application u/s 12 of PWDV Act 2005)
- Robarto Nieddu Vs State of Rajasthan and Anr on 20 Nov 2021 (RajHC: non-citizen women residing in India temporarily also are classified as ‘aggrieved person’)
- Suyalaly and Anr Vs Alphin Jeyasingh and Ors on 29 Nov 2021 (MadHC: Dispose within 2 months)
- Ravneet Kaur Vs Prithpal Singh Dhingra on 24 Feb 2022 (DHC: Daughter-in-law can be evicted but an alternate accommodation must be provided)
- Nahida Rishad Cooper Vs Ali Daruwala and Ors on 25 Feb 2022 (BHC: Relatives who have no shared house-holding can also be respondents as per proviso to Sec 2(q))
- Ali Hamid Daruwala Vs Nahida Rishad Cooper and Anr on 28 Feb 2023 (BHC: Relying on Prabha Tyagi, BHC held that no shared householding requirement is necessary)
- Vani Santhosh Babu Vs Vijaya Laxmi Vani on 3 Mar 2022 (TelHC: Dispose in 60 days)
- Kamatchi Vs Lakshmi Narayanan on 13 Apr 2022 [SC: Limitation does not apply to Sec 12 applications under PWDV Act]
- Bharti Anand Vs Sushant Anand and Ors on 26 Apr 2022 [DelHC: Mere fleeting or casual visits/living, without permanency, at different places shall not make it a shared household]
- Prabha Tyagi Vs Kamlesh Devi on 12 May 2022 (SC: DIR is not mandatory; No shared holding required)
- Rajamma H Vs Thimmaiah V on 09 Jun 2022 (KarHC: Dispose DVC within 2 weeks)
- Mrugesh Wasnik Vs Shweta Mrugesh on 22 Jun 2022 (BomHC: Dispose DVC within 3 months)
- P Parvathi Vs Pathloth Mangamma on 7 Jul 2022 (TelHC: Directions issued regd appearance of respondents)
- Naresh Kumar Yalla Vs State of Telangana on 21 Jul 2022 (TelHC: Dispose DVC in 1 month)
- Altaf Ahmad Zargar and Anr Vs Sana Alias Ruksana and Anr on 02 Sep 2022 (JKHC: After WS, Magistrate may dismiss the DVC and cancel any interim orders passed)
- Ragimani Gangadhar Vs Ragimani Padmavathi and Anr on 08 Sep 2022 (APHC: Disclose previous maintenance cases)
- Sandeep Pamarati Vs State of AP and Anr on 29 Sep 2022 (APHC: My Own case: Disposal of DVC in 60 days)
- S Anandanatesan Vs P Hemalatha on 23 Nov 2022 [MadHC: No DV, No Reliefs]
- Rajesh and Anr Vs Station House Officer and Ors on 05 Dec 2022 [KerHC: the existence of a domestic relationship between the complainant and the respondent is the sine qua non for seeking relief under the DV Act]
- Sunil Kumar and Ors Vs Elizabeth on 07 Feb 2023 [KarHC: Rental amount in lieu of accommodation in shared household can be given]
- Bhawna Vs Bhay Ram and Ors on 17 Feb 2023 [SC: No costs can be imposed on DV complainant for not proceeding with trial]
- Bhanu Kiran Vs Rahul Khosla and Ors on 28 Feb 2023 (PHHC: Interim Orders passed by Magistrate are appealable. Sessions Court can pass Interim Orders)
- Abhishek Agarwala and Anr Vs Smti Komal Poddar on 01 Mar 2023 (MegHC: Don’t insist on appearance of Respondents on each and every adjournment)
- Murlidhar Vs Sangita on 09 Mar 2023 [BomHC: No DV, No Reliefs]
- Kavitha M Vs Raghu on 16 Mar 2023 [KarHC: No need to conduct Inquiry in the nature of summary trial before passing Interim reliefs; Over rules Krishnamurthy Nookula Vs Savitha Y on 9 December, 2009]
- Sumeet Vs Himani Sumeet Ninave Nee on 29 Mar 2023 [BomHC: DV allegedly committed outside India can also be tried by Indian Courts]
- Sharnavva @Kasturi Vs Shivappa on 18 Apr 2023 [KarHC: No Strict proof of marriage required; No validity of marriage to be checked]
- Jaspal Kaur alias Pinki and Ors Vs State of Punjab and Anr on 24 Apr 2023 [Relies on Kunapareddy, Kamatchi, ]
- Sanjeev Kumar and Ors Vs Sushma Devi on 01 Jun 2023 [HimHC: Frame Issues after Hearing Both Parties]
- Rangesh Srinivasan Vs Madhulika Bawa on 07 Jun 2023 [DelHC: Stay on Interim Maintenance Order without any pre-condition; relied on Sabina Sahdev and Ors Vs Vidur Sahdev on 9 Jul 2018]
- Shilpashree J.M. Vs Gurumanjunatha .A.S. on 19 Jun 2023 [KarHC: No maintenance to idle sitting wife]
- Mummireddygari Prathap Reddy and Ors Vs Mummireddygari Srivani and Ors on 17 Jul 2023 [APHC: No Shared household, so no domestic relationship so no DVC maintainable on family members]
- Dhananjay Mohan Zombade Vs Prachi Dhananjay Zombade on 18 Jul 2023 [BomHC: No Shared household, so no domestic relationship so no DVC maintainable]
- Ashwini Pradhan Vs UOI and Anr on 08 Aug 2023 [MPHC: Sections 21 and 31 of PWDV Act are not unconstitutional]
- M.R.Somasundaram and Ors Vs B Rahini and Anr on 12 Dec 2023 [MadHC: Approach the Magistrate Court itself and raise the issue of maintainability and other preliminary issues]
- Mohammed Yasin Naikwadi Vs Aneesa and Anr on 13 Dec 2023 [KarHC: A protection order under DV Act does not include the order of granting monetary relief of maintenance under Section 20 of the D.V. Act]
- Kinjal Jayesh Mehta Vs Disha Jimit Sanghvi and Anr on 14 Feb 2024 [BomHC: Mere casual visits of the Petitioner to the shared household being devoid of any permanency is not sufficient and adequate to constitute residence in shared household]
- Kiran Jyot Maini Vs Anish Pramod Patel on 15 Jul 2024 [Interim Maintenance granted]
- Palaparthi Shebha and Anr Vs State of AP and Anr on 16 Jul 2024 [APHC: Interim maintenance order is made effective from the date of petition and not from date of Order]
- Krishnawati Devi and 6 Ors Vs State of UP and Anr on 22 Jan 2025 [AllHC: No Shared household, so no domestic relationship so no DVC maintainable on family members; Verify shared household condition satisfied or not before issuing notices; Dispose within 60 days]
- Kalavakuru Srinivas Kumar Reddy Vs Kalavakuru @ Revuru Sujatha and Ors on 05 Feb 2025 [APHC: Follow Rajnesh Vs Neha]
- Geddam Jhansi and Anr Vs State of Telangana and Anr on 07 Feb 2025 [SC: DVC proceedings quash for same allegations under Article 142 of Constitution]
- Vishal Shah Vs Monalisha Gupta and Ors on 20 Feb 2025 [SC: there is no requirement for the personal presence/appearance of any party in the proceedings under the DV Act, because they are quasi-criminal in nature and do not entail any penal consequences]
- Srinivasa D Vs Asha on 20 Mar 2025 [Landmark judgment to rectify baseless Orders of maintenance by Family Court judges in Karnataka]
- Abhijit Ankush Shelke and Ors Vs Shubhangi Abhijit Shelke and Anr on 09 May 2025 [SC: Voice sample may be compelled as per Sec 28(2) of PWDV Act and Article 20(3) will not apply]
- Shaurabh Kumar Tripathi Vs Vidhi Rawal on 19 May 2025 [SC: High Court can exercise jurisdiction under Section 482 of the CrPC to quash proceedings of an application under Section 12(1) or orders passed in accordance with Sections 18 to 23 of the DV Act, 2005]
2026-2030
- Deepak Gangadhar Dadge Vs Vijaya and Anr on 17 Jan 2026 [BHC: No suo moto perjury proceedings initiated]
- Mariya Zafar and Anr Vs State of UP and Anr on 31 Mar 2026
- Rani Bibi Vs Sk Nurullah and Ors on 8 Dec 2025 [CalHC : A wife can file a DV Act case from her temporary residence]
- Dinesh kumar Vs Neeti and Ors on 4 Apr 2026
- Ravi S Vs Sahana Devi A and Ors on 18 Jun 2026 [KarHC: Interim Maintenance to wife set aside as she is having more income than husband]
MASTER SITEMAP here.
Maintenance Judgments
Maintenance judgments by Enactment
Maintenance and Alimony Judgments under Hindu Marriage Act 1955 here.
Maintenance Judgments under Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act 1956 here.
Maintenance Judgments under Section 125 CrPC [Section 144 BNSS] here.
Maintenance Judgments under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 here.
Maintenance for Limited Time Period here.
Maintenance after Mutual Consent Divorce here.
Agreements against Public Policy are Void here.
A SPECIAL FOCUS ON IMPLEMENTATION OF Rajnesh Vs Neha AFFIDAVIT
A 2-judge bench of Supreme Court passed guidelines in Rajnesh Vs Neha on how to handle multiple maintenance litigation here.
- Telangana High Court gave a wonderful order here, confirming that any order passed by Trial Courts, without calling for the Income affidavits is void ab initio and therefore is liable to set aside and matters will be remanded back to the same Trial Courts for fresh adjudication.
- Then 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!!!
- There are other High Courts which set aside the trial Court orders for the singular reason that they did not follow Rajnesh Vs Neha. Check them out here.
- Calcutta HC in Nripendra Chandra Mahanta Vs Pramila Mahanta on 08 Feb 2023
- Allahabad HC in Parul Tyagi Vs Gaurav Tyagi on 04 Aug 2023
- Telangana HC in Chinta Vamshi Vs State of Telangana and Anr on 16 Oct 2023
- Kerala HC in Rijas MT Vs Hafseena M on 15 Nov 2023
- Patna HC in Gitanjali Devi Vs State of Bihar and Anr on 02 Dec 2023
- Karnataka HC in Darshanik M M Vs Poornima A on 04 Dec 2023
- MP HC in Balram Dixit Vs Kiran Dixit and Anr on 17 Jan 2024
- It seems AP High Court is hell bent not to follow Rajnesh Vs Neha… and passed this perverse order here with a trivial reason. Karma!
- AP HC following my success story in Sreekanth Vs Nalini in Meegada Venu Gopala Rao Vs Meegada Usha Rani and Ors on 10 Jul 2024. Happy!!!
- AP HC in Kalavakuru Srinivas Kumar Reddy Vs Kalavakuru @ Revuru Sujatha and Ors on 05 Feb 2025 [My client’s case]
- Orissa HC in Nabaghana Sahoo Vs Smruti Prava Sahoo and Anr on 11 Feb 2025 [neither of the parties has filed the disclosure affidavit as mandated in Rajnesh]
- Kerala HC in Ratheesh Vs Sreelakshmi and Ors on 14 Mar 2025 (Even to dispose Interim Maintenance Applications, call for affidavits)
- Patna HC in Ravi Prakash Saxena Vs Priyanka Rani on 04 Sep 2025 [Remanded case back to the same Trial Courts for fresh adjudication]
- Madras HC in N.Santhosh Kumar Vs S.Priyadarshini on 25 Oct 2025 [Lied on the Income Affidavit, so interim maintenance reduced]
A 2-judge bench of Supreme Court recorded the various observations of the Delhi High Court in Parvin Kumar Jain Vs Anju Jain here, where by Delhi High Court flagged the following tendencies of parties in filing their Income Affidavits.
- Instances of the appellant’s deliberate attempts to mislead the judicial process
- Withheld critical financial documents
- Selectively disclosed information to conceal the full extent of his wealth
- False representations by the appellant regarding his property and income
- Demonstrated a pattern of deliberate suppression of material facts and assets
- Allahabad HC in Atul Kumar Bajpai Vs State of UP and Anr on 17 Sep 2025 held that Perjury applications alleging false evidence/affidavit must be first Disposed
MASTER SITEMAP here.
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) – Maintenance Law & Judgments in India
Maintenance refers to financial support provided by one person to another who is unable to maintain themselves, typically in matrimonial or family relationships. Under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC), courts can order a person with sufficient means to provide maintenance to his wife, children, or parents if he neglects or refuses to support them.
The following persons can seek maintenance under the law:
- Wife, including a divorced woman who has not remarried
- Minor children unable to maintain themselves
- Adult children suffering from disability or illness
- Parents who cannot support themselves
The objective of the provision is to prevent destitution and vagrancy by ensuring financial support for dependents.
To claim maintenance, the applicant generally needs to show:
- A valid marital or legal relationship
- Neglect or refusal to maintain by the respondent
- The applicant is unable to maintain themselves
- The respondent has sufficient financial means
Courts evaluate these factors based on evidence and circumstances of each case.
Yes. Courts have clarified that mere qualification or ability to earn is not enough to deny maintenance. What matters is whether the person is actually earning enough to maintain a reasonable standard of living comparable to that enjoyed during the marriage.
Courts determine the quantum of maintenance based on several factors, including:
- Income and financial capacity of the respondent
- Lifestyle and standard of living during marriage
- Needs of the claimant and dependents
- Educational and employment status of the parties
- Reasonable expenses for food, clothing, and shelter
The goal is to ensure the dependent spouse can maintain a dignified standard of living.
Yes. Courts can grant interim maintenance to provide immediate financial support during ongoing proceedings. Applications for interim maintenance are expected to be decided expeditiously, ensuring the claimant is not left without support while the case continues.
Maintenance may be refused if the wife:
- Is living in adultery
- Refuses to live with her husband without sufficient reason
- Lives separately by mutual consent
- Has sufficient independent income to maintain herself
These exceptions are provided under Section 125(4) CrPC.
Yes. Under Section 125 CrPC, parents who are unable to maintain themselves have the legal right to claim maintenance from their children. Courts treat this obligation as a moral and legal duty of children toward their parents.
Yes. A divorced wife who has not remarried can claim maintenance if she cannot support herself. Courts have repeatedly recognized that divorce does not extinguish the right to maintenance where financial dependence continues.
Courts increasingly require both parties to file affidavits disclosing income, assets, and liabilities, including bank statements, tax returns, and property details. This ensures fair determination of maintenance and prevents concealment of income.
Maintenance provisions are social welfare measures intended to prevent financial hardship and ensure that dependents such as spouses, children, and parents are not left destitute due to neglect or abandonment.
Yes. With the enactment of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), 2023, the provision corresponding to Section 125 CrPC has been incorporated as Section 144 BNSS, while retaining the same core principles governing maintenance claims.
Khatri and Ors Vs State of Bihar and Ors
Few other Orders passed by the Supreme Court in the Khatri and Ors Vs State of Bihar and Ors case (available here)are listed below for reference.
- Khatri and Others Vs State of Bihar and Ors on 19 December, 1980
- This is decision from Apex Court of India which held that right to free legal services is inalienable from Article 21.
- Khatri and Ors Vs State of Bihar and Ors on 14 January, 1981
- Khatri and Ors Vs State of Bihar and Ors on 25 November, 1982
