domestic violence act

This tag is associated with 7 posts

“27. Jurisdiction:- (1) The court of Judicial Magistrate of the first class or the Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, within the local limits of which- (a) the person aggrieved permanently or temporarily resides or carries on business or is employed; or (b) the respondent resides or carries on business or is employed; or (c) the cause of action has arisen, shall be the competent court to grant a protection order and other orders under this Act and to try offences under this Act. (2) Any order made under this Act shall be enforceable throughout India.”= A close reading of the above provision would make it abundantly clear that for filing a petition seeking protection orders, it is not necessary that there should have arisen a cause of action or atleast a part of cause of action, within the territorial jurisdiction of the Judicial Magistrate concerned. It is enough if the aggrieved person permanently or temporarily resides or carries on business or is employed within the local limits of the said Judicial Magistrate.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 17.07.2012 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU Crl.OP No.14609 of 2012 and M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2012   Yusuf Allabuksh .. Petitioner Vs 1. Julakia Bee 2. Reshma .. Respondents     Prayer:- Criminal Original Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C., to call for the records and … Continue reading

DVC retrospective – None of the reliefs claimed in D.V.C. No.8 of 2011 by the 2nd respondent can be called crimes. Though, the Act empowers a Magistrate to entertain the complaint of an aggrieved person under Section 12 of the Act and makes it incumbent on the Magistrate to make enquiry of the same under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, reliefs under Sections 18 to 22 of the Act are in the nature of civil reliefs only. It is only violation of order of the Magistrate which becomes an offence under Section 31 of the Act and which attracts penalty for breach of protection order by any of the respondents. Similarly Section 33 of the Act provides for penalty for discharging duty by Protection Officer. Except under Sections 31 and 33 of the Act which occur in Chapter V, all the reliefs claimed under Chapter IV of the Act are not offences and enquiry of rights of the aggrieved person under Sections 18 to 22 of the Act cannot be termed as trial of a criminal case.Further, this Court in Sikakollu Chandra Mohan v Sikakollu Saraswati Devi by order dated 06.07.2010 in Crl.R.C.No.1093 of 2010 held that it cannot be said that provisions of the Act cannot be invoked in case separation between the parties was prior to the Act coming into force. Therefore, contention of the petitioners fails. 3. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU CRIMINAL PETITION No.5921 of 2012 13.08.2012 Gundu Chandrasekhar and others 1. The State of A.P., rep by Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P.,And another Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri Gaddam Srinivas Counsel for the Respondents: Additional Public Prosecutor <Gist : >Head Note: ? Cases referred: 2009(1) ALT (Cri)-285 ORDER: The … Continue reading

D.V.C.- after the marriage, the first respondent and the complainant lived together. There is no basis to say that the respondents 2 and 3 and the complainant lived together in a shared house as defined though no doubt the other ingredients are satisfied. On this ground, the complaint is not tenable and hence ultimately the proceedings are to be quashed so far as the respondents 2 and 3 are concerned. In the result, the petition is dismissed so far as the first respondent is concerned and is allowed so far as the other respondents are concerned

THE HON‘BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY CRIMINAL PETITION No.4140 of 2010 2-8-2012 Nagamuthula Kondaiah State of A.P., rep. by P.P. & another. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri P.SRIDHAR REDDY Counsel for the Respondent No.1: The Public Prosecutor < Gist: > Head Note: ? Cases referred: ORDER: 1. This petition is filed under Section 482 … Continue reading

Domestic Violence Act- The scheme of the Act does not envisage passing of any restraint order against the petitioner in respect of his assets, movable or immovable except the shared household. Thus, no order can be passed restraining the petitioner in dealing with the properties in the manner he likes. The remedy, if any, in this regard, would be available to the respondents not in the present proceedings, but elsewhere.

Crl.M.C. 3071/2008 Page 1 of 11 * THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CRL.M.C. 3071/2008 Date of Decision: 02.06.2012 Mr. Sunil Madan ….Petitioner Through: Ms. Malvika Rajkotia & Mr. Bandan Kumar, Advocates. Versus Mrs. Rachna Madan & Anr. ….Respondents Through: Ms. Sugam Puri, Advocate. CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.L. MEHTA M.L. MEHTA, … Continue reading

whether the petition under the provisions of the PWD Act, 2005, was maintainable by a woman, who was no longer residing with her husband or who was allegedly subjected to any act of domestic violence prior to the coming into force of the PWD Act on 26th October, 2006. =even if a wife, who had shared a household in the past, but was no longer doing so when the Act came into force, would still be entitled to the protection of the PWD Act, 2005.


the appearance of the petitioners before the trial Court is dispensed with =In any event, taking into consideration the nature of allegations wherein the question of identity of the accused does not arise, the appearance of the petitioners before the trial Court is dispensed with except on the dates the learned trial Judge insists for the same and the petitioners shall be properly represented through their counsel.

THE HON‘BLE SRI JUSTICERAJA ELANGO   CRIMINAL PETITION No.173 of 2012   ORDER:           Petitioners approached this Court invoking the provisions under Section 482 Cr.P.C. seeking to quash the proceedings against them in D.V.C.No.48 of 2011 on the file of the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, Sangareddy, Medak District. 2.  Heard both sides. 3. The complainant approached the Court below … Continue reading

since the domestic violence case is quasi criminal one, if the respondent not appeared, then the court can set him exparte. no need to give warrants against him for securing his attendance as it is not compulsory, it is his option whether to contest or not to contest=However, the learned Magistrate is directed to proceed with the matter without taking coercive steps for the appearance of the petitioners. If the petitioners chose not to represent in the matter, ex parte orders can be passed and only if they violate the orders, they can be proceeded under Section 31 of the Act as referred above.

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE A.GOPAL REDDY Criminal Petition No.963 of 2008 08-07-2010 Valisetti Chandra Rekha. 2. Kota Satyanarayana Rao. The State of A.P., rep by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P. 2. Kota Kamala Devi. Counsel for the Appellants: Sri K.Srinivas Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Public Prosecutor :ORDER: Petitioners, who are respondent Nos.3 … Continue reading

Blog Stats

  • 2,902,476 hits



Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,908 other subscribers
Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com