HIRAL P. HARSORA vs KUSUM NAROTTAMDAS HARSORA AND ORS
Date:06-Oct-16
[google-drive-embed url=”https://docs.google.com/uc?id=1QNzK_4wJCjlVtVHFFJihVUZnbI1JKB2w&export=download” title=”Document” icon=”https://ssl.gstatic.com/docs/doclist/images/icon_12_pdf_list.png” style=”download”]
ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE /SPECIAL JUDGE: CBI03 (PC ACT) SOUTH DISTRICT: SAKET COURTS:NEW DELHI
Woman earning equal to hubby does NOT get anything under DV. Neither maint nor residence.
Date:26-Sep-15
[google-drive-embed url=”https://docs.google.com/uc?id=0B5hJQiEAA0LnTk1PbnBSLVRxSXc&export=download” title=”Document” icon=”https://ssl.gstatic.com/docs/doclist/images/icon_12_pdf_list.png” style=”download”]
Metropolitan Magistrate 01, Saket District Court, New Delhi
False Domestic Violence 1 Lakh fine Imposed on Wife
Date:27-May-15
[google-drive-embed url=”https://docs.google.com/uc?id=0B5hJQiEAA0LnY2xFRzlGOU5FWWc&export=download” title=”Document” icon=”https://ssl.gstatic.com/docs/doclist/images/icon_12_pdf_list.png” style=”download”]
HC of MAHARASTRA, MUMBAI
Time Limit Judgment on DV from Mahastra
Date:8-May-15
[google-drive-embed url=”https://docs.google.com/uc?id=0B5hJQiEAA0LnSkhvdndVc01rZmM&export=download” title=”Document” icon=”https://ssl.gstatic.com/docs/doclist/images/icon_12_pdf_list.png” style=”download”]
ASJ-02 Karkardooma Court Delhi
Husband pay maintenence for ONE YEAR during that time WIFE must find job and then no maintenence.
Date:12-Mar-15
[google-drive-embed url=”https://docs.google.com/uc?id=0B5hJQiEAA0LnS3dLZ0FobENwRVk&export=download” title=”Document” icon=”https://ssl.gstatic.com/docs/doclist/images/icon_12_pdf_list.png” style=”download”]
HC of DELHI and NEW DELHI
DIL can’t stay in MIL and FIL’s aquired property. She has to leave
Date:25-Jul-14
[google-drive-embed url=”https://docs.google.com/uc?id=0B5hJQiEAA0LnRDBaWW9XcF9iR1E&export=download” title=”Document” icon=”https://ssl.gstatic.com/docs/doclist/images/icon_12_pdf_list.png” style=”download”]
HC of DELHI and NEW DELHI
DIL can’t stay in MIL and FIL’s aquired property. She has to leave
Date:25-Jul-14
[google-drive-embed url=”https://docs.google.com/uc?id=0B5hJQiEAA0LncEZuQmpJZTF0Ylk&export=download” title=”Download” icon=”https://ssl.gstatic.com/docs/doclist/images/icon_12_pdf_list.png” style=”download”]
HC of DELHI and NEW DELHI
DIL can’t stay in MIL and FIL’s acquired property. She has to leave
Date:25-Jul-14 | JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK
[google-drive-embed url=”https://docs.google.com/uc?id=0B5hJQiEAA0LnZ2dsdXdBRS1TQ1U&export=download” title=”Download” icon=”https://ssl.gstatic.com/docs/doclist/images/icon_12_pdf_list.png” style=”download”]
HC of KERLA
Husband can sell his Hoouse anytime, does not matter if DV if filled or not
Date:******
[google-drive-embed url=”https://docs.google.com/uc?id=0B5hJQiEAA0LnRi1KN1lQV0hYVnM&export=download” title=”Download” icon=”https://ssl.gstatic.com/docs/doclist/images/icon_12_pdf_list.png” style=”download”]
HC of M.P.
DV must be filled within 1 year from incident
Date:22-Jul-14
[google-drive-embed url=”https://docs.google.com/uc?id=0B5hJQiEAA0LnRi1KN1lQV0hYVnM&export=download” title=”Download” icon=”https://ssl.gstatic.com/docs/doclist/images/icon_12_pdf_list.png” style=”download”]
HC of DELHI and NEW DELHI
Pendency of Proceedings under Domestic Violence Act, not a ground to deny Appointment
Date:26-May-14
[google-drive-embed url=”https://docs.google.com/uc?id=0B5hJQiEAA0LnbktOS0l5S0dpOUE&export=download” title=”Download” icon=”https://ssl.gstatic.com/docs/doclist/images/icon_12_pdf_list.png” style=”download”]
DELHI
Shared household and aggrieved person definitions in DV Act 2005 are explained
Description:A perusal of section 2 f of DV act 2005, makes it clear that domestic relationship arises in respect of an aggrieved person if the aggrieved person had lived together with the respondent in a shared household. This living together can be either soon before filing of petition or at any point of time. The problem arises with the meaning of phrase “”at any point of time””. Does that mean that living together at any stage in the past would give right to a person to become aggrieved person to claim domestic relationship? I consider that “”at any point of time”” under the Act only means where an aggrieved person has been continuously living in the shared household as a matter of right but for some reason the aggrieved person
has to leave the house temporarily and when she returns, she is not allowed to enjoy her right to live in the property. However, at any point of time cannot be defined as at any point of time in the past whether the right to live survives or not.
Date: 20-Sep-10 | SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
ADIL & ORS. ….. Petitioner Through: Mr. N.K. Handa, Adv. Vs STATE & ANR
[google-drive-embed url=”https://docs.google.com/uc?id=0B5hJQiEAA0LnUUs2TkxMMElDakE&export=download” title=”11_appl 14141 2009 Adil___Ors._vs_State___Anr._on_20_September,_2010.pdf” icon=”https://ssl.gstatic.com/docs/doclist/images/icon_12_pdf_list.png” style=”download”]
Bombay
Time limit for filing DV. (My personal experience is some advocate accpets this, but some not as in this case coupled was already seperated.) Need More study on this. Pls read other time limit related judgements
Description:A wife who lived in a domestic relationship earlier, but which
ceases only because of any domestic violence can certainly file an application
for such domestic violence that took place whilst she lived in that relationship.
Such application is required to be filed within a reasonable time to show that
relationship would give her the cause of action to sue under the D.V. Act for
the reliefs under the Act.
A wife who has returned from the USA and consequently from the
domestic relationship and lived in India for one year cannot file an application
with regard to that relationship after such time. Such wife cannot be taken to
be in any domestic relationship. The order of the learned Judge is, therefore,
correct. The writ petition is completely devoid of merits and accordingly
dismissed
Date: 7-Mar-13 | MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J.
Sejal Dharmesh Ved
.. Applicant
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors
[google-drive-embed url=”https://docs.google.com/uc?id=0B5hJQiEAA0LnbFdHVklYVDY3OEk&export=download” title=”12_APPL NO. 160 OF 2011 Sejal Dharmesh Ved Vs maharastra.pdf” icon=”https://ssl.gstatic.com/docs/doclist/images/icon_12_pdf_list.png” style=”download”]
Bombay
DV can be filed against woman & Court should accept the form adopted by a
violated woman who applies under the DV Act.
Description:The petitioners made an application for dismissal of her application on the ground that an application under the DV Act cannot be made against any adult female person under Section 2(q) of the Act which defines the term “respondent”. The petitioners also made the application that the application under the DV Act was not in a prescribed form which was mandatory under Section 12 as well as under Section 23 of the Act and that the applicant has not furnished details of the previous litigation required under form II.
Date: 4-Apr-13 MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J.
Chandrakant Nivruti Wagh & Ors. …Petitioners
Vs.
Manisha C. Wagh & Anr. …Respondents
[google-drive-embed url=”https://docs.google.com/uc?id=0B5hJQiEAA0LnSnZOY2N2YTJQYkk&export=download” title=”41_CRWP273811_Worst DV Judgment_Bombay HC.pdf” icon=”https://ssl.gstatic.com/docs/doclist/images/icon_12_pdf_list.png” style=”download”]
Bombay
Maintainability of DV, after time limit
Description:A wife who lived in a domestic relationship earlier, but which ceases only because of any domestic violence can certainly file an application for such domestic violence that took place whilst she lived in that relationship.
Such application is required to be filed within a reasonable time to show that relationship would give her the cause of action to sue under the D.V. Act for the reliefs under the Act. A wife who has returned from the USA and consequently from the domestic relationship and lived in India for one year cannot file an application
with regard to that relationship after such time. Such wife cannot be taken to be in any domestic relationship. The order of the learned Judge is, therefore, correct. The writ petition is completely devoid of merits and accordingly dismissed.
Date: 7-Mar-13 MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J.
Sejal Dharmesh Ved .. Applicant
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents
[google-drive-embed url=”https://docs.google.com/uc?id=0B5hJQiEAA0LnUTVWbVJ1Ty1LeTg&export=download” title=”42_http___bombayhighcourt.nic.in_generatenew.php_path=._data_criminal_2013__fname=APL16011070313.pdf” icon=”https://ssl.gstatic.com/docs/doclist/images/icon_12_pdf_list.png” style=”download”]
Delhi
Maintenance rejected to the wife , who is able to maintain herself, who is working
Description:The facts that the petitioner is
employed and has been living separate and leading an independent life are undisputed facts. I find no ground
to interfere with the orders of the Courts below in petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The
petition is hereby dismissed. SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA,J
Date: 25.10.2010 | SHIV NARAYAN DHINGRA
KAVERI ….. Petitioner Through Ms. Uma, Advocate
versus
Neel Sagar & Anr. ….. Respondents
[google-drive-embed url=”https://docs.google.com/uc?id=0B5hJQiEAA0LnNFAzM3c5S0ZveHc&export=download” title=”47_Kaveri_vs_Neel_Sagar___Anr._on_25_October,_2010.pdf” icon=”https://ssl.gstatic.com/docs/doclist/images/icon_12_pdf_list.png” style=”download”]
BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR
No monetary relief under Section 20 of DV Act (PWDVA) unless domestic violence proved – Mumbai HC
Description:In my considered opinion, the learned Magistrate had committed an error in granting monetary relief to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 despite the fact that domestic violence could not be established. Though it is possible to say that the maintenance was permissible for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (minor children) under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the monetary reliefs could not have been given to them under Section 20 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The view taken by the learned Magistrate and the appellate Court, in my opinion, is not correct and hence, I pass the following order.
Date: MAY 05, 2014. M.L. TAHALIYANI, J.
Koushik S/o. Anil Gharami,
Aged about 40 years,
R/o House NO.59, Shayamapalli
Khajurikala, Piplani, Bhopal462022
Tahsil Hujur and District : Bhopal(MP)
…. PETITIONER.
// VERSUS //
1. Sau. Sangeeta Koushik Gharami,
aged about 36, Occu. Service,
2. Ku. Gayatri Sangeeta Gharami,
3. Ku. Astha Sangeeta Gharami
[google-drive-embed url=”https://docs.google.com/uc?id=0B5hJQiEAA0LnRFBjVlI0UjRCdFE&export=download” title=”54_IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY.pdf” icon=”https://ssl.gstatic.com/docs/doclist/images/icon_12_pdf_list.png” style=”download”]