DV ACT 2005   |   IPC 498A   |   Maintenance






Number of Documents : 100

INSTALL ANDROID APP



1.

DV Act 2005
HC of HIMACHAL PRADESH at SHIMLA

on

2017-05-02
CrMMO No 30 of 2011J. Sandeep SharmaAnil Kumar vs Shashi BalaSection 12 of DV ACT 2005

No Maintenance Under DV Act If No Evidence Of Maltreatment Or Violence

This Court, after having bestowed its thoughtful consideration to the pleadings available on record, has no hesitation to conclude that appellate court below, while granting maintenance of Rs.1,000/- to the complainant got swayed by emotions and completely ignored overwhelming evidence available on record suggestive. of the fact that complainant herself had left the house. Since there was no evidence with regard to maltreatment or violence, learned appellate Court below ought not have granted any amount on account of maintenance. Moreover, as has been noticed above, marriage between the parties has been dissolved vide judgment dated 3.3.2011, which has been further upheld by his Court and as such, this Court sees not force, much less substantial, in the complaint of the complainant, which was rightly u rejected by the learned trial Court.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
2.

DV Act 2005
HC of KARNATAKA at BENGALURU

on

2017-04-18
Criminal Petition No 2351 of 2017J. Anand ByrareddyMohammed Zakir vs Smt. ShabanaDV ACT 2005

Husband Allowed to file Domestic Violence Case Against Wife

The Karnataka High Court has recently held that any person, whether male or female, aggrieved and alleging violation of the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, can invoke the provisions under the Act.

Justice Anand Byrareddy was hearing a petition filed by Mohammed Zakir against dismissal of his complaint filed under the Domestic Violence Act against his wife and her relatives by Addl. City Civil Court, Bangalore.

The civil judge was not impressed with the complaint, as the Act clearly is loaded in favour of women only and it does not contemplate any male person being aggrieved by domestic violence.

The high court observed that it is to be noticed that the said issue was subject matter of an appeal before the apex court in the case of Hiral P Harsora vs Kusum Narottamdas Harsora, wherein the Supreme Court has struck down a portion of Section 2(a) on the ground that it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and the phrase adult male as appearing in Section 2(q) stood deleted.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
3.

DV Act 2005
HC of DELHI at NEW DELHI

on

2017-02-14
RSA 14 of 2017J.Pratibha RaniMeenu vs Birma Devi2nd Appeal under section 100 of Code of Civil Procedure

Daughter In Law Can't Claim Right to Live in Self Acquired House of Mother-in-Law

Daughter In Law Can't Claim Right to Live in Self Acquired House of Mother-in-Law
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
4.

DV Act 2005
HC of ORISSA, CUTTACK

on

2017-01-04
Crl Rev No 70 of 2016J. S.K.SahooSayed Fakiruddin vs Hena BegumDV ACT 2005

Maintenance is not Meant for the Wife to Live in Luxury. It Should be Fair and Reasonable and Take into Account the Husband's Earnings

Perused the judgment of learned Magistrate where the income side of the petitioner has been discussed. It seems that the learned Magistrate has accepted the statement of the opposite party even though no corresponding documents relating to the income of the petitioner has been filed and no clinching oral evidence has been adduced in that behalf. The monetary relief in the form of maintenance for the aggrieved person as well as her children as per section 20 of the P.W.D.V. Act, 2005 should be adequate, fair and reasonable and consistent with the standard of living to which the aggrieved person is accustomed. The amount should not be so fixed which would enable the aggrieved person as well as her children to live in luxury. The needs/requirements of the claimants, the income of the husband of the aggrieved person, the status of the husbands family and the standard of life which the claimants would have led had they continued to live in the house of the respondent should also be considered. The mechanical way of fixation of maintenance at the whim and pleasure of the Court is not permissible. The decision should not be arbitrary but judicious.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
5.

DV Act 2005
IN THE COURT OF SHRI RAJNEESH KUMAR GUPTA, SPECIAL JUDGE CBI­02 (P.C. ACT), DISTT. NORTH WEST, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI

on

2016-11-24
Crl. (A) No. 46 or New Crl. A No. 49817 of 2016 or 20Rajneesh Kumar GuptaMs. Anjana Rani vs Mr. Amit jindalDV ACT 2005

No Domestic Relation no DV : From the material on record, it is clear that the appellant has left the matrimonial house in the year 2009 and has been living separately from the respondents No. 2 and 3. In the appeal, the appellant has made the allegations that she used to visit the respondent No. 2 and 3 very regularly on every weekend and every holiday. These allegations shows that the appellant is residing separately and has only temporarily visiting the residence of the respondent No. 2 and 3. There is nothing to show that the appellant has ever resided in the household or residence of the respondents No. 2 and 3 continuously and as a matter of right and has lived in the shared household with the respondents No. 2 and 3. Keeping in view the abovesaid judgment, I am of the opinion that there is no domestic relationship between the appellant and the respondents No. 2 and 3.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
6.

DV Act 2005
HC of RAJASTHAN at JAIPUR

on

2016-11-17
S.B.Criminal Revision No 670 of 2016J.Prashant Kumar AgarwalGeeta Singh vs State of RajasthanDV ACT 2005

Although, the Act has been enacted to provide more effective protection of the rights of women but that does not mean that a woman can claim any expenses as monetary relief : The question in the present . case is whether refusal by the respondent to incur living expenses of his daughter can be said to be commision of economic abuse. No law or custom has been shown by the petitioner under which a well educated daughter of the age of more than 30 years can claim her I living expenses to the tune of 700 pound per month for pursuing her further higher studies from a foreign University. According to this provision deprivation of economic or financial resources which the the aggrieved person requires out of necessity also amount to economic abuse. For the applicability of this part of the provision, requirement of the aggrieved person must be out of necessity. In my opinion each and every expenses incurred or to be incurred by the aggrieved person for her study cannot be termed to be a requirement out of necessity. Expenses incurred or to be incurred by daughter of a person for her reasonable studies can be said to be a requirement out of necessity but living expenses incurred or to be incurred by a daughter for pursuing her further higher studies from a foreign University and more particularly in view of the fact that she has already obtained a post graduate degree from a reputed University in India and has already taken further studies from a foreign university and who is capable of earning her own income by joining a job and who has joined her further studies without the consent of his father rather against his wishes cannot be said to be a requirement out of necessity and even if father has refused to bear such expenses, it cannot be said that the daughter has been subjected to economic abuse within the meaning of the Act. Although, the Act has been enacted to provide more effective protection of the rights of women but that does not mean that a woman can claim any expenses as monetary relief from the respondent. Unless the act . of the respondent comes within the purview of the domestic violence as specified under Section 3 of the Act and unless the petitioner is an aggrieved person, no relief can be granted to her.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
7.

DV Act 2005
HC of U.P.

on

2016-11-09
Writ C No 53503 of 2016J.Suneet KumarKusum vs State of U.P.DV ACT 2005

All Live-in Relations can't be relationship in the nature of Marriage

In the facts of the case before the Supreme Court the appellant (lady) had entered into the relationship knowing fully well that the man is married and therefore the Court declined to grant her any relief holding that the relationship would not be a relationship in the nature of marriage.

2) The ratio of Indra Sharma squarely applies on the facts of the present case for the reason it is admitted and pleaded in the writ petition that the second petitioner entered into a relationship with the first petitioner who is married and her marriage has not been dissolved by any competent court as on date, therefore, such a relationship cannot be granted any protection.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
8.

DV Act 2005
HC of RAJASTHAN at JODHPUR

on

2016-11-08
Cri Misc Petition No 1524 of 2011J. P.K.LohraSudama Dutt Sharma vs State of RajasthanDV ACT 2005

Complaint not maintainable under Domestic Violence Act if it lacks mentioning of specific instances of domestic violence. Allowing such a case to continue will be a complete abuse of the process of courts.

There is yet another aspect of the matter that the respondent-complainant laid the complaint on 8 th of February 2010 and during pendency of the complaint her husband expired on 17 th of October 2010, as a consequence of which complainant against him was abated. In the considered opinion of this Court, therefore, learned trial Court has seriously erred in continuing proceedings against the present petitioners on wholly untenable grounds. On the face of it, when the complaint is bereft of pre-requisites of necessary ingredients prescribed under Section 12 of the Act of 2005, further proceedings in the matter against the petitioners is nothing but a futile exercise which warrants clogging of the same perpetually to secure ends of justice.

That apart, in the instant case, the discord/acrimony between the spouses started from 1995 and since then complainant is not living with the petitioners and even there was a matrimonial dispute going on between the spouses, is sufficient to conclude that there is no iota of evidence to indicate that she has been subjected to domestic violence by the petitioners. Moreover, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, any claim of residence staked by respondent- complainant against the petitioners is wholly untenable as per provisions of the Act of 2005. In above view of the matter, if the proceedings are allowed to be continued before the learned trial Court on the complaint filed by the respondent-complainant, it would obviously result in abuse of the process of the Court.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
9.

DV Act 2005
HC of MANIPUR at IMPHAL

on

2016-10-20
Cril Revn Petition 21 of 2015J. R.R.PrasadInaobi Singh vs Huidrom NingolDV ACT 2005

Whether application by father for visitation rights is maintainable under domestic violence Act?

(1) As I have already indicated that Section 21 is amenable to two interpretations as is being highlighted by the parties, in such event only that interpretation which advanced the object of the provision can be accepted. It is worthwhile to note that the Act was enacted to prevent the occurrence of domestic violence in the society and keeping in view that, several protection orders including the safety of the aggrieved person and the child have been contemplated to be passed. Therefore, the cause of the safety of the aggrieved person or the child is always warrants to be taken into account in interpreting the provision. In such situation, if the interpretation given on behalf of the wife-aggrieved party is accepted, it will render the provision incomplete as in case where wife-aggrieved party seeks custody of the child, if the child is in custody of the husband and an order of custody is passed in favour of the aggrieved party, visitation right can be granted to the husband. But, if custody lies with the wifeaggrieved party, then the husband will have no remedy of visitation right if the interpretation as contemplated by the wife-aggrieved party is given effect to and thereby it can easily be said that interpretation given by the aggrieved party-wife will never advance the cause of the child.

(2) On the other hand, if it is held that the husband, in absence of any application for grant of custody, can maintain his application for visitation right will advance the object of the provision as in case of child being in custody of the husband, application for custody can be filed by the wife wherein the husband can have a visitation right if order is of custody of child passed in favour of the aggrieved party. In other situation, when the custody of the child lies with the wife, there would be no occasion for the wife for filing an application for custody as it has happened in the instant case. In that situation, husband will have remedy to have visitation right by filing application to that effect. Under the circumstances, I do find that the appellate court was quite justified in holding that even in absence of application for custody being there, by the aggrieved party, application of visitation right in terms of the proviso to Rule 21 can be maintained. Thus, I do not find any merit in the Criminal Revision Petition No.16 of 2015. Hence, it is dismissed.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
10.

DV Act 2005
SC of INDIA

on

2016-10-06
Civil Appeal No 10084 of 2016J.R.F.NarimanHiral P.Harsora vs Kusum NarottamdasDV ACT 2005

Women can also be prosecuted under domestic violence law : We, therefore, set aside the impugned judgment of the Bombay High Court and declare that the words 'adult male' in Section 2(q) of the 2005 Act will stand deleted since these words do not square with Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the proviso to Section 2(q), being rendered otiose, also stands deleted. We may only add that the impugned judgment has ultimately held, in paragraph 27, that the two complaints of 2010, in which the three female respondents were discharged finally, were purported to be revived, despite there being no prayer in Writ Petition No.300/2013 for the same. When this was pointed out, Ms.Meenakshi Arora very fairly stated that she would not be pursuing those complaints, and would be content to have a declaration from this Court as to the constitutional validity of Section 2(q) of the 2005 Act. We, therefore, record the statement of the learned counsel, in which case it becomes clear that nothing survives in the aforesaid complaints of October, 2010. With this additional observation, this appeal stands disposed of.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
11.

DV Act 2005
HC of RAJASTHAN at JAIPUR

on

2016-09-20
Crl Misc Petition No 4990 of 2015J.Mohammad RafiqVishnu Dutt Goyal vs Smt Kalpna GuptaDV ACT 2005

DV CASE NOT TO CONTINUE WHEN ORIGINAL RCR CASE COMPROMISED AND DISMISSED : Learned counsel for the respondent has produced for perusal of the court the order dated 12.12.2015 passed in the Lok Adalat attached to the courts at Hindauncity, and submitted that the matter has been compromised between the parties before the Family Court, where the application filed by the husband under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act has been dismissed on the basis of the compromise. If that be so, there is no reason why the proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act continue.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
12.

DV Act 2005
HC of MAHARASTRA at MUMBAI

on

2016-09-19
Appeal From Order No 910 of 2014J.Dr.Shalini Phansalkar JoshiMrs. Sarika Mahendra Surekha vs Mr. Mahendra SurekhaDV ACT 2005

WOMEN CAN ENFORCE RIGHT ON SHARED HOUSEHOLD : Thus, when the very object of enactment of D.V. Act is to protect the right of married woman in the 'shared household' irrespective of to whom such house belongs and when the very concept of her right of residence being linked to title or ownership of the house being alien and kept away from the scheme of the Act, as u due to the very absence of right, title or interest in the matrimonial home, she was thrown out therefrom, to import again o the very same concept of title and ownership is defeating the C very object of the Act, setting at naught the legislative efforts and most importantly depriving the woman of her human rights, which hare given statutory recognition under D.V. Act.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
13.

DV Act 2005
HC of DELHI at NEW DELHI

on

2016-09-09
Crl.M.C. 46 of 2013J.Pradeep NandrajogBabita vs StateDV ACT 2005

NO DV CASE IF ACCUSED ARE NOT IN DOMESTIC RELATIONSHIP

Pertaining to the complaint lodged under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and perusal of the allegations therein, the learned Metropolitan Magistrate deleted Sh.Ved Prakash and Smt.Hira Devi from the array of respondents vide order dated February 29, 2012 which order has been confirmed by the learned ASJ, Kakardoma Court vide order dated November 29, 2012 holding that there is no domestic relationship between the complainant and Sh.Ved Prakash and Smt.Hira Devi who were not even residing with the complainant in the matrimonial home. The allegations against Ved Prakash and Hira Devi have been found to be vague.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
14.

DV Act 2005
ASJ­02 (EAST) SPL. JUDGE (NDPS) KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI

on

2016-07-01
Crl Appeal No 71 of 2016Sh.Ravindra DudejaRakhi Luthra vs Sunil LuthraDV ACT 2005

AMOUNT OF MAINTENANCE : The amount of maintenance fixed for wife should be such as she can live reasonable comfort, considering her status and mode of her life as she used to when she lived with her husband and that she does feel handicapped in prosecution of her case. At the same time, the amount so fixed cannot be excessive and extortionate.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
15.

DV Act 2005
HC of U.P.

on

2016-06-29
Cri Rev No 879 of 2015J.Sudhir Kumar SaxenaChiranjeev Kumar Arya vs State of U.P.DV ACT 2005

Maintenence Under Sections of Domestic Violence (DV) Order by Lower Court is Recalled by upper court on the ground that Wife is a Lawyer and practicing in HC of U.P
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
16.

DV Act 2005
SC/ST District Court, Hanumangarh

on

2016-03-30
Crl App No 35 of 2014Prithvi Pal SinghDr. G. Singh vs StateDV ACT 2005

Lower Court Failed to analyze respondent evidences and Wife failed in proving period of Domestic Relation

(1) Petitioner failed to prove the period of stay in Husband's house. (2) Lower Court failed to analyze respondent evidences (3) Hearsay evidences are not believable (4) If head of family not demanding dowry, how other can. (5) Family members unnecessarily dragged. (6) If husband's father would be alive, wife would add his name too into dowry seekers.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
17.

DV Act 2005
HC of DELHI at NEW DELHI

on

2016-03-23
RSA 42 of 2016J. Ashutosh KumarAnukriti Dubey vs Parta KansabanikDV ACT 2005

TENANTED PREMISES & SHARED HOUSEHOLD : A tenanted premises may come under the definition of shared household under Clause (s) of Section 2 of the D.V Act if such premises have been used by the aggrieved person and the respondent even if and irrespective of whether the respondent or the aggrieved person has any right, title or interest in the aforesaid premises. This definition, though, is inclusive of tenanted premises, but is limited to the period during which the tenancy subsists. The definition of shared household is surely with respect to a joint family property or a tenanted premises which are occupied by the aggrieved person and the respondent in a domestic relationship. A landlord does not have any domestic relationship even during the subsistence of a tenancy and, therefore, he is outside the realm of the D.V. Act.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
18.

DV Act 2005
DISTRICT & SESSIONS JUDGE (WEST) : DELHI

on

2016-03-10
CA No 41 of 2015J.Rekha RaniSh. Ranjan Parmar vs Smt. Mamta Parmar

Respondent admitted being more qualified than the appellant. She admitted being able bodied person and having capacity to earn. As such she cannot be allowed to sit idle at home to put financial burden on the appellant. Let her make sincere endeavour to find work. As offered by appellant, if respondent needs assistance of the appellant in finding job, she may communicate with him by sending SMS on mobile / email. Both the parties are directed to exchange their respective mobile numbers and email addresses, within a week before Ld. Trial Court. Appellant has agreed to pay her maintenance of Rs.12,000/- per month for a period of one year and during this period, she should make sincere efforts and start working.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
19.

DV Act 2005
IN THE COURT OF PRAVEEN KUMAR, SPECIAL JUDGE, PC ACT, CBI−III, ROHINI COURTS, DELHI

on

2015-12-22
Crl App No 70 of 2015Sh. Praveen KumarSatish Solanki vs SujataDV ACT 2005

Daughter in Law visiting in-laws few days is not in domestic relation with them, NO DV : (1) Domestic relationship is defined under section 2 (f) of the D.V. Act. Domestic relationship arises in respect of an aggrieved person if the aggrieved person (respondent) had lived together with the appellants in a shared household. This living together can be either soon before filing of petition, or 'at any point of time'. The phrase 'at any point of time' under the D.V. Act has been defined in judgment Vijay Verma (supra) wherein it has been held that it only means where an aggrieved person has been continuously living in a shared household as a matter of right. It has been further held in the said judgment that where a family member leaves the shared household to stablish his own household, and actually establishes his own household, he cannot claim to have a right to move an application u/S 12 of the D.V. Act on the basis of domestic relationship. It is the case of the respondent herself that after their marriage, they shifted to Vikas Puri and, thereafter, to Rohini. There is nothing in the application u/s 12 of the D. V Act to suggest that the respondent and her husband had been continuously living in the shared household as a matter of right at Janak Puri. Domestic relationship continues so long as the parties live under the same roof and enjoy living together in a shared household.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
20.

DV Act 2005
HC of GUJRAT

on

2015-11-27
Special Criminal Application No 5313 of 2015J. Jayant Patel----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

Gujarat High Court has held that Complaints under Domestic Violence Act can be quashed invoking the jurisdiction under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
21.

DV Act 2005
In the Court of Shri Vidya Prakash: Addl Sessions Judge 04, Rohini Court

on

2015-11-14
Crl App No 38 of 2014J.Vidya PrakashSmt Kanta vs Sh. Pawan KumarDV Act 2005

BEATEN MIL GET INTERIM RELIEFS UNDER PWDVA : What emerges from the above discussion is that appellant who is an old lady, is out of possession of her own property and despite approaching the Competent Court of Law, no interim reliefs have been granted to her by the Court below. The view taken by trial Court while declining to grant interim reliefs, is not sustainable under the law for the reasons already mentioned herein above in the preceedings paras. This is more so when the averments made by appellant regarding acts of domestic violence committed by respondents, got prima facie supported from DIR, status report filed by SHO and MLC placed on record.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
22.

DV Act 2005
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE /SPECIAL JUDGE: CBI­03 (PC ACT) SOUTH DISTRICT: SAKET COURTS:NEW DELHI

on

2015-09-26
Cri Appeal No 06 of 2015Addl. Sessions Judge, Sh Sanjeev Jain----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

Woman earning equal to hubby does NOT get anything under DV. Neither maint nor residence.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
23.

DV Act 2005
HC of DELHI at NEW DELHI

on

2015-08-07
Crl M.C. No 3497 of 2008J.Suresh KaitEkta Kapoor vs Ajay AroraDV ACT 2005

In-Laws Property is not shared household : (1) Bare reading of the 'Will' transpires that after death of husband of respondent No.2, said property will be vested in respondent No.2. Perusal of the same reveals that it is nowhere stated that respondent No.2 has limited right only to live therein. Moreover, it is nowhere stated in the 'Will' that the respondent No.2 would not dispose of the property. Therefore, during her lifetime, she is absolute owner of the property in question. However, if she dies intestate, certainly it will devolve upon respondent No.1, husband of petitioner herein. Moreover, it is specifically mentioned in the 'Will' that neither of daughters of late Sh. Rajinder Paul Arora shall be entitled to receive any of his assets after his death. (2) Considering the facts noted above, it is clear that during the lifetime of respondent No.2, she is the absolute owner of the property in question and till then, said property cannot be held as a 'shared household'.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
24.

DV Act 2005
HC of DELHI at NEW DELHI

on

2015-08-07
Crl.M.C.No 3497 of 2008J. Suresh KaitEkta Arora vs Ajay AroraDV ACT 2005

In Law's Property is not Shared Household

1) Considering the facts noted above, it is clear that during the lifetime of respondent No.2, she is the absolute owner of the property in question and till then, said property cannot be held as a 'shared household'.

2) In view of the above discussion and on the basis of the 'Will', the petitioner has no right in the property during the lifetime of her mother-in-law, i.e., respondent No.2 herein. The property will devolve upon respondent No.1 only after her death. Before that, the petitioner cannot claim any right or title in the property. Therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the order dated 25.08.2008 passed by the learned ASJ, whereby the order on residence dated 29.09.2007 passed by the learned Trial Court was set aside, does not suffer from any illegality or perversity.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
25.

DV Act 2005
HC of GUJRAT at AHMEDABAD

on

2015-06-09
Special Civil App No 4435 of 2015J.N.V.AnjariaGaurav Babulal vs State of GujratDV ACT 2005, IPC 498A

498A STAYED, FILE DV, COURT SAYS ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW : (1) Learned advocate Mr. B. P. Gupta for the petitioners submitted that the proceedings initiated are abuse of process of law and factuated with in order to harass the petitioners. In that regard, it was submitted that the husband and wife have been staying separately since 2010. A complaint under Section 498A was filed by the wife in April 2014. The same was subjected to a proceedings before this Court by filing Criminal Misc. Application No. 4247 of 2014 under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. This Court has stayed the proceedings pursuant to the said complaint by order dated 08.01.2015. The complaint under the Domestic Violence Act was filed thereafter.

2. From the above uncontroverted facts, a prima facie case is made out showing abuse of process in initiating the domestic violence proceedings.Therefore, RULE, returnable on 30th July, 2015. Till the next date, there shall be no further proceedings before the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate in respect of Criminal Case No. 85 of 2014.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
26.

DV Act 2005
Metropolitan Magistrate 01, Saket District Court, New Delhi

on

2015-05-27
CC No. 316/3/2007 of 2007Ms. Shivani Chauhan----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

False Domestic Violence 1 Lakh fine Imposed on Wife
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
27.

DV Act 2005
OC of MAHARASTRA, MUMBAI

on

2015-05-08
Cri. WP NO 1865 of 2010J.R.P.SondurBaldota----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

Time Limit Judgment on DV from Mahastra
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
28.

DV Act 2005
ASJ-02 Karkardooma Court Delhi

on

2015-03-12
CA No 37 of 2014J. Anuradha Shukla Bhardwaj----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

Husband pay maintenence for ONE YEAR during that time WIFE must find job and then no maintenence.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
29.

DV Act 2005
HC of PUNJAB & HARYANA at CHANDIGARH

on

2014-08-05
Crl Misc No M-36559 of 2013J.Paramjeet SinghAnup vs VanishreeDC ACT,482

ABUSE OF PROCESS OF LAW : Petitioners are not the members of intra-family of husband of the complainant rather are members of the extended family related to father of the husband of the complainant, who are not in anyway residing in the shared household as defined in the Act. Even no specific allegations have been leveled against the petitioners, only their names have been mentioned in the complaint and allegations are general in nature. In earlier proceedings initiated at the instance of respondent-complainant under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and FIR under Sections 406/498-A IPC no such allegations have been levelled. These allegations are afterthought. In my opinion, complaint against the petitioners is clearly an abuse of process of law.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
30.

DV Act 2005
HC of DELHI and NEW DELHI

on

2014-07-25
RFA 299/2014 of 2014A.K. Pathak----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

DIL can't stay in MIL and FIL's aquired property. She has to leave
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
31.

DV Act 2005
HC of DELHI and NEW DELHI

on

2014-07-25
***** of *********----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

DIL can't stay in MIL and FIL's aquired property. She has to leave
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
32.

DV Act 2005
HC of DELHI and NEW DELHI

on

2014-07-25
RFA 299 of 2014JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

DIL can't stay in MIL and FIL's acquired property. She has to leave
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
33.

DV Act 2005
HC of KERLA

on

2014-07-24
Cri Rev Pet No 366 of 2014P. UBAID----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

Husband can sell his Hoouse anytime, does not matter if DV if filled or not
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
34.

DV Act 2005
HC of KERLA

on

2014-07-24
Crl.Rev.Pet.No 366 of 2014J.P.UbaidRajan vs SijiDV ACT 2005

Husband can sell his house when he wants!! DV can’t stop that : Most objectionable part of the order - The husband is restrained from alienating the shared house hold and the property wherein the building stands. Of course, the definite case of the husband is that the property was in fact purchased by his mother with her own funds and that the said direction will not bind the mother. Now, it is submitted that the mother is no more, and that the husband has inherited the property including the shared house hold, as the sole legal heir. Of course, it is true that the said direction was not in fact binding on the mother. Any way, now, the property has come in his hands as the legal heir. Once the property has come in his hand as the sole legal heir, he will have to obey the order. But the material question is whether the wife is entitled to get such an order. In fact, what she claims is merely a civil right over the property. Her case is that, the said property was in fact purchased by the mother-in-law by utilising her funds also. It appears that she claims right to continue there as a co- owner, on a claim of right, on the basis of what she contributed, and not simply as the wife having right to live in the shared household. There is reason to believe that the relationship between the parties is really strained. If what the wife claims is some civil right over of the property, she will have to approach the competent Civil Court for appropriate civil remedy. However, she can continue in the shared household along with the husband so long as the shared house hold continues in the possession of the husband. The husband cannot be prohibited or restrained from alienating his property because it is his civil right. However, in case the husband proceeds to alienate the shared house hold, she can approach the court below for appropriate relief like alternative accommodation, and when such a claim comes, it will have to be decided by the trial court on merits. Subject to this, the second part of the order will have to be set aside.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
35.

DV Act 2005
HC of M.P., JABALPUR BENCH

on

2014-07-22
***** of *********----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

DV must be filled within 1 year from incident
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
36.

DV Act 2005
HC of M.P.

on

2014-07-22
Misc Cri. Case No 8955 of 2013J. Jarat Kumar Jain----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

DV must be filled within 1 year from incident
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
37.

DV Act 2005
HC of DELHI and NEW DELHI

on

2014-05-26
***** of *********----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

Pendency of Proceedings under Domestic Violence Act, not a ground to deny Appointment
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
38.

DV Act 2005
HC of DELHI and NEW DELHI

on

2014-05-26
CM 15769 of 2013J. P. K. Basin----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

Pendency of Proceedings under Domestic Violence Act, not a ground to deny Appointment
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
39.

DV Act 2005
HC on MUBAI, NAGPUR BENCH

on

2014-05-06
***** of *********----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

First Explore all possible options, then issue NBWs
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
40.

DV Act 2005
HC on MUBAI, NAGPUR BENCH

on

2014-05-05
***** of *********----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

If there is no Domestic Violence on Woman then the children are not entitle for relief
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
41.

DV Act 2005
HC of MUMBAI, Nagpur

on

2014-05-05
Cri Writ Petition 32 of 2014M.L. Tahaliyani----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

No monetary relief under Section 20 of DV Act (PWDVA) unless domestic violence proved
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
42.

DV Act 2005
ASJ-02 Karkardooma Court Delhi

on

2014-03-18
CA No 135 of 2013Ms. Anuradha Shukla----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

Delhi sessions court denies woman maintenance under DV Act on grounds that she was capable of working and without child
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
43.

DV Act 2005
HC of DELHI & NEW DELHI

on

2014-02-11
CRL.REV.P. 637 of 2013J. Indeermeet Kaur----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

No Maintenence if Wife Earning Smart Enough ... ... for misuse fined by 5000
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
44.

DV Act 2005
HC of DELHI and NEW DELHI

on

2014-02-11
***** of *********----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

No Maintenence if Wife Earning Smart Enough ... ... for misuse fined by 5000
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
45.

DV Act 2005
SC of INDIA

on

2013-11-26
Crl App No 2009 of 2013J.K.S.RadhakrishnanIndra Sharma vs V.K.V. SharmaDV ACT 2005

All Live-in Relations can't be relationship in the nature of Marriage

1) Live-in or marriage like relationship is neither a crime nor a sin though socially unacceptable in this country. The decision to marry or not to marry or to have a heterosexual relationship is intensely personal.

2) We are, in this case, concerned with the question whether a “live-in relationship” would amount to a “relationship in the nature of marriage” falling within the definition of “domestic relationship” under Section 2(f) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short “the DV Act”) and the disruption of such a relationship by failure to maintain a women involved in such a relationship amounts to “domestic violence” within the meaning of Section 3 of the DV Act.

3) 65. We are, therefore, of the view that the appellant, having been fully aware of the fact that the respondent was a married person, could not have entered into a live-in relationship in the nature of marriage. All live-in-relationships are not relationships in the nature of marriage.

4) We are conscious of the fact that if any direction is given to the respondent to pay maintenance or monetary consideration to the appellant, that would be at the cost of the legally wedded wife and children of the respondent, especially when they had opposed that relationship and have a cause of action against the appellant for alienating the companionship and affection of the husband/parent which is an intentional tort.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
46.

DV Act 2005
SC of INDIA

on

2013-11-25
***** of *********----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

SC Judgment of Timeperiod in Domestic Violence Cases
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
47.

DV Act 2005
HC of MAHARASTRA at NAGPUR

on

2013-11-19
Cri Appeal No 527 of 2013A.B. Chaudhari----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

HC of Maharastra found the alligation against a few respondent are not of the catagory defined in Domestic Violence.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
48.

DV Act 2005
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE-II (NORTH-WEST), ROHINI COURTS, DELHI

on

2013-11-06
***** of *********----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

(1) No share in FIL and MIL property (2) Wife is capable of maintaining.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
49.

DV Act 2005
HC of GUJRAT

on

2013-08-01
R/SCR.A/1263 of 2013S.R. Brahmbhatt----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

No Maintainance in DV filed after 1 year from sepration
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
50.

DV Act 2005
HC of MUMBAI

on

2013-03-07
***** of *********----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

DV Act only if wife in domestic relationship and hence it has to be filed in reasonable time
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
51.

DV Act 2005
HC of MAHARASTRA

on

2013-03-07
Cri. Application No 160 of 2011J. Roshan Dalvi----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

No DV can be registred after one Year
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
52.

DV Act 2005
HC of MUMBAI

on

2013-03-07
***** of *********----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

DV can't be filled after one year of sepration
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
53.

DV Act 2005
SC of INDIA

on

2013-01-07
***** of *********----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

Wife Cannot Implicate one and all in Domestic Violence case
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
54.

DV Act 2005
HC of KARNATKA

on

2012-08-01
Cri Rev No 382 of 2012J. A.N. Venugopal Gowda----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

If Notice is Returned as Unclaimed then it is deemed as served in DV Case
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
55.

DV Act 2005
HC of PUNJAB & HARYANA

on

2012-08-01
CRM NO. M-9277 of 2012J. Jitendra Chauhan----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

Disowning Son can not help him in Matrimonial Cases
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
56.

DV Act 2005
HC of KARNATKA

on

2012-08-01
***** of *********----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

If Notice is Returned as Unclaimed then it is deemed as served in DV Case
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
57.

DV Act 2005
HC of PUNJAB and HARYANA

on

2012-08-01
***** of *********----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

Disowning Son can not help him in Matrimonial Cases
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
58.

DV Act 2005
HC of DELHI

on

2012-05-14
Crl. Rev. P. 344 of 2011J.Pratibha Rani----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

No interim maintenance, in DV case, to well qualified wife sitting idle. Was she forced to resign etc is for trial, NOT interim. Delhi HC
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
59.

DV Act 2005
HC of DELHI and NEW DELHI

on

2012-02-21
***** of *********----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

Wife fined 2 lakh wrt DV Act proceedings for making mockery of the judicial process, Contempt and for suppression of facts
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
60.

DV Act 2005
SC of INDIA

on

2012-02-07
***** of *********----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

A wife who lived with her husband before the law came into force but got seperated after the law was enforced, will be entitled to the right to share her husband's house under the law.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
61.

DV Act 2005
HC of DELHI and NEW DELHI

on

2012-02-07
***** of *********----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

If family members did not stay together with complainant as joint family,they can not be respondent in the domestic violence Act
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
62.

DV Act 2005
HC of DELHI and NEW DELHI

on

2011-11-08
***** of *********----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

Daughter in Law Can' Stay in Mother-in-Law's House
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
63.

DV Act 2005
HC of DELHI and NEW DELHI

on

2011-09-02
***** of *********----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

(1) Mothers, Sisters can file DV on daughter in law (2) As per Section 2 Clause (q) the respondent means any adult male person who is or has been in a domestic relationship. Hence, a plain reading of the Act would show that an application will not lie under the provisio ns of this Act against a female. But, when Section 19(1) proviso is perused, it can be seen that the petition is maintainable, even against a lady. Often this has taken as a cont ention, when ladies are arrayed as respondents and it is contended that petition against female respondents are not maintainable. This is a loophole which should be plugged.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
64.

DV Act 2005
SC of INDIA

on

2011-08-23
***** of *********----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

(1) Domestic Violence Semi Crimal in nature and set time limit of 1 yr (2) In view of the provisions of Section 468 Cr.P.C., that the complaint could be filed only within a period of one year from the date of the incident seem to be preponderous in view of the provisions of Sections 28 and 32 of the Act 2005 read with Rule 15(6) of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Rules, 2006 which make the provisions of Cr.P.C. applicable
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
65.

DV Act 2005
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (CENTRAL) TIS HZARI COURTS, DELHI

on

2011-04-15
***** of *********----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

Maintenance Order by Metropolitan Magistrate set Aside because order was based on Affidavit not on Evidences.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
66.

DV Act 2005
HC of KERLA

on

2010-12-10
Crl Rev Pet No 461 of 2010J.V.RamkumarSunitha vs State of KerlaDV ACT 2005

MISUSE OF DV ACT : In order to constitute a complaint there should be an allegation made to a Magistrate that some person has committed an offence . Here, except where a respondent is prosecuted under Sec. 31 of the Act for committing breach of a protection order under Sec. 18 or where a protection officer is prosecuted under Sec. 33 of the Act for not discharging his duty, the Magistrate is approached by a person for any of the aforementioned reliefs by filing an application under Sec. 12 read with Rule 6 of the Rules and Form II. The respondent who is the opposite party to such an application is not an accused. (Vide Sreedivya vs Sudheer - 2009 (3) KLT 477) . Since he is not ​an accused , he cannot be arrested and produced or ordered to be arrested and produced before the Magistrate. The expression complaint found in the Act and the Rules has been used in a generic sense and is not to be understood in the context of a complaint as defined under the Cr.P.C.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
67.

DV Act 2005
HC of KERLA

on

2010-12-10
Crl M.C. No 4943 of 2010J. M.Shashidharan NambiarShanvas vs RaseenaDV ACT 2005, SEC 23

NO NON BAILABLE WARRANT UNDER SECTION 23(1) FOR NON-PAYMENT : When first respondent appeared through a counsel, he was directed to appear in person and pay the maintenance. It is on the failure to appear and pay maintenance as ordered, the non bailable warrant was issued. Learned Magistrate cannot order non bailable warrant for the failure to pay maintenance as has been done in this case. It is made clear that Magistrate can proceed against the petitioner or other respondents for non payment of the interim maintenance only as provided under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act and such an order cannot be enforced as has been done by the learned Magistrate. In such circumstances, the order issuing non bailable warrant can only be quashed.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
68.

DV Act 2005
HC of KERLA

on

2010-12-10
Crl M.C.No. 4843 of 2010J.M.SASIDHARAN NAMBIARSHANAVAS vs RASEENASection 23 of DV ACT

NON-BAILABLE WARRENT : A Magistrate, on passing an order under Section 23(1) or an ex parte order under Section 23(2) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, cannot direct arrest of the respondent by issuing non bailable warrant before taking cognizance of the offence, if an offence is committed under sub-section (1) of Section
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
69.

DV Act 2005
DISTRICT COURT, SAKET, DELHI

on

2010-11-18
***** of *********----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

No Intrim Maintenence to Wife if she is capable of Earning
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
70.

DV Act 2005
HC of DELHI and NEW DELHI

on

2010-10-25
***** of *********----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

Petitioner must claim she is unable to maintain herself for relief of maintenance
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
71.

DV Act 2005
HC of DELHI and NEW DELHI

on

2010-10-08
***** of *********----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

Aggrieved person cant make all relatives of the husband as a respondent under PWDVA (1) It is apparent from the above provision of Domestic Violence Act that before passing an order on aplication, the magistrate has to take into consideration the domestic incident report received from him by Protection Officer or Service Provider. The order dated 5th November, 2009 of learned MM shows that before serving notice to the respondent, the learned MM did not take into consideration anything and did not even consider the contents of the application and did not try to find out as to whether respondents mentioned in the application satisfied the definition of respondent under Section 2(q) of Domestic Violence Act. (2) The order dated 5th November, 2009 passed by the learned MM is therefore set aside. The learned MM is directed to consider the domestic incident report and consider the contents of the application and find out whether the respondents (petitioners herein) had any domestic relationship with the applicant and could be fitted in the definition of the “respondent” as given in Section 2(q) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and then only issue notice to them.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
72.

DV Act 2005
HC of DELHI and NEW DELHI

on

2010-10-04
***** of *********----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

DV Order Can be passed only Against the RESPONDENTS who had been in DOMESTIC RELATION
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
73.

DV Act 2005
HC of DELHI and NEW DELHI

on

2010-09-22
***** of *********----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

Maintenence Formula for WIfe and Child in DV cases
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
74.

DV Act 2005
HC of DELHI at NEW DELHI

on

2010-09-01
Crl M.C. No 4066 of 2009J. S.N. DhingraAmit Khanna vs Priyanka KhannaDV ACT 2005, Section 12

CLAIM OF HIGH STATUS BY SPOUSE NOT SUFFICIENT FOR MAINTENANCE : It is evident from the order passed by the learned ASJ that he has not enumerated the vast movable and immovable properties owned by the husband. Mere allegations made by the wife that husband was a man of status and had vast movable and immovable properties would not give jurisdiction to the Court to pass an order of maintenance beyond the means of the husband. When allegations are made by the spouses about the vast movable and immovable properties of other, even for passing an interim order the allegations must be substantiated by some sort of documentary evidence. The properties existing in the name of sister-in-law, mother or father cannot be considered to be the properties of the spouses. If such properties are considered as properties of husband, then property existing in the name of father of the wife, mother of the wife or brother or sister of the wife could reflect her status and income and the courts can think that a wife has sufficient properties and she does not need maintenance. (2) After attaining self sufficiency and being employed, a man’s own income has to be the basis for fixing maintenance for his dependants whether wife, parents or children.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
75.

DV Act 2005
HC of DELHI and NEW DELHI

on

2010-09-01
***** of *********----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

Juridication in DV case by J. Dhingra
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
76.

DV Act 2005
HC of DELHI and NEW DELHI

on

2010-08-30
***** of *********----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

No maintenance in DV if maintenance already passed in Crpc 125.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
77.

DV Act 2005
ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE (CENTRAL) ROHINI, DELHI

on

2010-08-28
***** of *********----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

Married sisters of a man, living separately from the joint family, cannot be prosecuted under the Domestic Violence (DV) Act on a complaint of his wife, a Delhi court has held. Additional Sessions Judge Kamini Lau expressed concern over misuse of special laws by making women parties in the petitions just because they happened to be sisters of the man. Married sisters residing in their own matrimonial houses are not a part of the shared household or joint family, as contemplated under the Domestic Violence Act, the court said. It, however, clarified that the married sisters were not denied the rights, which could be claimed from their parental home. The observations were made by the court while dismissing the plea of a woman who challenged an order of the Metropolitan Magistrate, refusing to summon married sisters of her estranged husband in the case under the Domestic Violence Act.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
78.

DV Act 2005
HC of DELHI at NEW DELHI

on

2010-08-27
Crl M.C. No 491 of 2009J.S.N.DhingraSanjay Bhardwa vs StateCrPC-125, Section-18

ADDITIONAL RIGHTS : A perusal of Domestic Violence Act shows that Domestic Violence Act does not create any additional right in favour of wife regarding maintenance (125, sec-18 etc). HUBBY UNEMPLYED AND WIFE CAPABLE : We are living in an era of equality of sexes. The Constitution provides equal treatment to be given irrespective of sex, caste and creed. An unemployed husband, who is holding an MBA degree, cannot be treated differently to an unemployed wife, who is also holding an MBA degree. Since both are on equal footing one cannot be asked to maintain other unless one is employed and other is not employed. FAILED MARRIAGE : It must be remembered that there is no legal presumption that behind every failed marriage there is either dowry demand or domestic violence.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
79.

DV Act 2005
HC of DELHI and NEW DELHI

on

2010-08-09
***** of *********----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

No Maintenance in DV if hubby unemployed and wife educated capable to earn.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
80.

DV Act 2005
HC of DELHI at NEW DELHI

on

2010-07-29
Crl Rev P.No. 253 of 2010J.S.N.DhingraHarbans Lal Malik vs Payal Malik

FAMILY MEMBERS OF NRI HUSBAND : Once a son grows and he starts earning, marries, makes his separate home, and sires children the burden of his wife cannot be put on the shoulders of his father or brother on an estrangement between husband and wife. This burden has to be borne by the husband alone and not by the parents or bothers or sister of the husband, unless and until the husband had been contributing to the joint family as a member of HUF and has a right of deriving benefits from the joint family. If the husband had not been contributing or deriving benefits from the joint family, had not been member of the joint family and the parents had been treated like any other relative, how can the parents be burdened with the responsibility of his wife.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
81.

DV Act 2005
HC of DELHI and NEW DELHI

on

2010-07-06
***** of *********----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

Family Members of NRI husband can't be dragged in DV
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
82.

DV Act 2005
HC od MADRAS

on

2010-02-17
Crl.O.P.No. 24598 of 2008J.C.NagappanR.Nivendran vs Nivashini MohanCrPC 482, DV ACT 2005

FEMALE CAN BE RESPONDENT IN DV ACT 2005 : In the result, we hold that the 'respondent' as defined under Section 2(q) of the Act includes a female relative of the husband or the male partner and women could be added as respondents in an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
83.

DV Act 2005
HC of KERLA

on

2009-10-14
Crl M.C. No 2998 of 2007J. K. HemaChithrangathan vs Seema C.DV ACT 2005

MALE RIGHTS : While protecting the rights of a woman, the court has to be careful and cautious in not violating the rights of the male also.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
84.

DV Act 2005
HC of DELHI at NEW DELHI

on

2009-10-12
Crl M.C. No 1784 of 2009J.Kailash GhambirManish Tandon vs State

DV act can be filed where the person aggrieved permanently or temporarily resides or carries on business or is employed : it has to be considered that the legislature has provided the women covered under the Act with such wide options to institute a case against the unscrupulous persons who harass or abuse her at the places covered under Section 27 of the Act with an intent that women may opt for the place which best suited their convenience, comfort and accessibility.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
85.

DV Act 2005
HC of DELHI and NEW DELHI

on

2009-10-12
***** of *********----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

DV act can be filed where the person aggrieved permanently or temporarily resides or carries on business or is employed
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
86.

DV Act 2005
HC of MADRAS

on

2009-08-31
Crl. O.P. No. 91 of 2009J. R.REGUPATHIK.Viswanathan vs Sivamalar

Having regard to the operation of the Act as against the person who is sought to be taken as respondent in the proceedings initiated thereunder, it must be pointed out that unless the aggrieved person, namely, respondent herein, substantiates that the person concerned has got domestic relationship or that he is a family member, such person cannot be mechanically impleaded as one of the respondents in the application. If the respondent has any grievance against the petitioner, she is always at liberty to initiate proceedings against him before the appropriate forum for any offence committed by him against her, if she is so advised.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
87.

DV Act 2005
HC of MADRAS

on

2009-08-31
***** of *********----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

Unless the complainant, substantiates that the person concerned has got domestic relationship or that he is a family member, such person cannot be mechanically impleaded as one of the respondents in the application
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
88.

DV Act 2005
HC oF MAHARASTRA

on

2009-08-17
Writ Petition No 8283 of 2008J.D.B.BhosaleSanchita Amitabh Dasgupta vs Amitabh Prashant Dasgupta

DIL shd honor the rental agreement : Under the leave and license agreement the petitioner is liable to pay Rs.5,000 per month to respondent no.2 which has not been paid since long. The petitioner alone is in possession of the flat. In the circumstances there shall be interim relief in terms of prayer clause (b) subject to the petitioner depositing the entire arrears of license fee under the leave and license agreement dated 26.6.2006 in this court within a period of eight weeks from today and shall also deposit monthly license fee during pendency of this writ petition every month. If the petitioner fails to deposit the amount, as aforestated, this petition shall stand dismissed for non prosecution without reference to the court.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
89.

DV Act 2005
HC of MUMBAI

on

2009-08-17
***** of *********----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

The judgment of Mumbai HC which asked daughter in law to honor the rental agreement and pay Rs 5,000 payment to mother in law.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
90.

DV Act 2005
HC of KERLA

on

2008-08-11
Cri M.C.No. 3016 of 2008J.R.BasantNamitha vs N.Vijya Kumar

Exemptions from appears in DV : I fail to understand how, why and under what circumstances such personal appearance is insisted by the learned C.J.M. It is trite that even though proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 are initiated before a criminal court, the relief claimed is essentially and in its core, civil in nature.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
91.

DV Act 2005
HC of KERLA

on

2008-08-11
***** of *********----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

Exemptions from appears in DV
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
92.

DV Act 2005
SC of INDIA

on

2008-03-14
Civil Appeal 2003 of 2008S.B.SinhaVimalben vs Vatslabeen

The Domestic Violence Act provides for a higher right in favour of a wife. She not only acquires a right to be maintained but also thereunder acquires a right of residence. The right of residence is a higher right. The said right as per the legislation extends to joint properties in which the husband has a share.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
93.

DV Act 2005
SC of INDIA

on

2008-03-14
Civil App 2003 of 2008J.S.B. SINHA----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

The Domestic Violence Act provides for a higher right in favour of a wife. She not only acquires a right to be maintained but also thereunder acquires a right of residence. The right of residence is a higher right.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
94.

DV Act 2005
IN THE COURT OF SHRI V.K. BANSAL ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE NEW DELHI

on

2008-01-30
Criminal Revision No 196 of 2007Shri V.K.BansalShivani Kabra vs Shaleen Kabra

Court is of the opinion that it is the duty and responsibility of every court to adjudicate the matter after taking evidence and according fare opportunity to both the parties to plead their own case. In the present case the revisionist moved an application under Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 leveling allegations against the respondent. Respondent had taken his own plea in this regard and the interim order had already been passed on the basis of pleadings. Now to come to the just conclusion about the allegations and counter allegations it is necessary that the parties be given opportunity to lead their evidence and also to come in the witness box and face the cross examination.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
95.

DV Act 2005
ADD. SESSION JUDGE DELHI

on

2008-01-30
***** of *********----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

DV has to be PROVED
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
96.

DV Act 2005
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE NEW DELHI

on

2008-01-30
***** of *********----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

Domestic Violence Need to br Proved to get relief under DV ACT 2005
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
97.

DV Act 2005
IN THE COURT OF DR. SHAHABUDDIN : MM : ROHINI :DELHI

on

2007-09-15
Application No 1192-1 of 2007Dr. ShahabuddinSonia vs Vinod

On the basis of entire facts and circumstances of this case, I am prima facie of the considered opinion that behavior of applicant is of such a nature that she is not cooperating with the respondents. She prima facie appears to be harassing the respondents on trivial matters
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
98.

DV Act 2005
ROHINI COURT, DELHI

on

2007-09-15
***** of *********----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

Misuse of DV ACT 2005
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
99.

DV Act 2005
SC of INDIA

on

2006-12-15
Civil Appeal No 5837 of 2006J.Markandey KatjuS.R.Batra vs Smt. Tarun Batra

If the definition of shared household includes a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage had lived in a domestic relationship, then it will mean that wherever the husband and wife lived together in the past that property becomes a shared household. It is quite possible that the husband and wife may have lived together in dozens of places e.g. with the husband's father, husband's paternal grand parents, his maternal parents, uncles, aunts, brothers, sisters, nephews, nieces etc. The claim for alternative accommodation can only be made against the husband and not against the husband's in-laws or other relatives.
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW
100.

DV Act 2005
SC of INDIA

on

2006-12-15
***** of *********----- vs -----DV ACT 2005

Wife has no RIGHT in MOTHER-IN-LAWs property
DOWNLOAD   |   GOOGLE DOCS   |   VIEW