Close Menu
    What's Hot

    Shocking Details In Raja Raghuwanshi Case Highlights Men Rights Matter

    Sponsor: THIS ARTICLE IS NOT SPONSOREDJune 11, 2025

    Fathers Day 2021 Contest Winner

    June 21, 2021

    Fathers Day 2021 Contest Response

    June 19, 2021
    Facebook X (Twitter) Instagram
    • Men’s Helpline Number
    • Donations !
    Facebook X (Twitter) Instagram
    Tuesday, June 24
    vaastav.org
    Call Us : 8882 498 498
    • Home
    • About Us
    • Events
    • Testimonials
    • Gallery
    • Contact Us
    • Blogs
      • Law Misuse & Divorce
      • Events, Press Release and Projects
      • Miscellaneous
      • News
      • Parental & Child Alienation
      • Success Stories & Testimonials
    • Weekly Meetings Across India
    vaastav.org
    • Law Misuse & Divorce
    • Parental & Child Alienation
    • Success Stories & Testimonials
    • Law Misuse & Divorce
    • Events, Press Release and Projects
    • Miscellaneous
    • News
    Home»Judgements»DV ACT 2005

    DV ACT 2005

    HIRAL P. HARSORA vs KUSUM NAROTTAMDAS HARSORA AND ORS

    Significance of the judgement is that the word “Adult male” has been deleted from the DV act.

    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”]

     

    Economy News

    Shocking Details In Raja Raghuwanshi Case Highlights Men Rights Matter

    Sponsor: THIS ARTICLE IS NOT SPONSOREDJune 11, 2025

    The tragic murder of Raja Raghuvanshi, a young man from Indore, during his honeymoon in…

    Fathers Day 2021 Contest Winner

    June 21, 2021

    Fathers Day 2021 Contest Response

    June 19, 2021
    Top Trending

    Shocking Details In Raja Raghuwanshi Case Highlights Men Rights Matter

    Sponsor: THIS ARTICLE IS NOT SPONSOREDJune 11, 2025

    The tragic murder of Raja Raghuvanshi, a young man from Indore, during…

    Fathers Day 2021 Contest Winner

    By Gender EqualityJune 21, 2021

    Category Name Place Drawing, Painting, Cartoon Miss Reeyan Sunil Naik Palghar, Maharashtra…

    Fathers Day 2021 Contest Response

    By Gender EqualityJune 19, 2021
    Facebook X (Twitter) Instagram YouTube

    Quick Links

    • About Us
    • Events
    • Testimonials
    • Gallery
    • Contact Us
    • Donations
    • Privacy Policy

    Categories

    Menu
    • Law Misuse & Divorce
    • Parental & Child Alienation
    • Success Stories & Testimonials
    • Law Misuse & Divorce
    • Events, Press Release and Projects
    • Miscellaneous
    • News

    Connect With Us

    • Twitter Feeds
    • Instagram
    • Facebook Feed
    • Careers

    Subscribe to Updates

    Get the latest creative news from FooBar about art, design and business.


    © 2025 Vaastav Foundation. All Rights Reserved.

    Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.

    Ad Blocker Enabled!
    Ad Blocker Enabled!
    Our website is made possible by displaying online advertisements to our visitors. Please support us by disabling your Ad Blocker.