advocatemmmohan
Domestic violence
The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short “the DV Act”) – live in relationship in the nature of marriage – A concubine can not be considered as live in relationship in the nature of marriage – not entitled for any relief under the Act = Indra Sarma … Appellant Versus V.K.V. Sarma … Respondent = published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=41007
The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short “the DV Act”) – live in relationship in the nature of marriage – A concubine can not be considered as live in relationship in the nature of marriage – not entitled for any relief under the Act = whether a “live-in relationship” would amount to … Continue reading
The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 = whether acts committed prior to the coming into force of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and which fall within the definition of the term ‘Domestic Violence’ as informed in the Act could form the basis of an action.” = SARASWATHY …. APPELLANT VERSUS BABU ….RESPONDENT = published in http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/imgst.aspx?filename=40988
whether acts committed prior to the coming into force of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and which fall within the definition of the term ‘Domestic Violence’ as informed in the Act could form the basis of an action.” … Continue reading
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – s.2(q) read with proviso thereto – Expression “respondent” in s.2(q) – Interpretation of – Complaint under the provisions of the Act – Whether female members cannot be made parties in proceedings under the Act, as “females” are not included in the definition of “respondent” in s.2(q) – Held: Although s.2(q) defines a respondent to mean any adult male person, who is or has been in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person, the proviso to s.2(q) widens the scope of the said definition by including a relative of the husband or male partner within the scope of a complaint, which may be filed by an aggrieved wife or a female living in a relationship in the nature of a marriage – Though the expression “female” has not been used in the proviso to s.2(q) also, but, if the Legislature intended to exclude females from the ambit of the complaint, which can be filed by an aggrieved wife, females would have been specifically excluded, instead of it being provided in the proviso that a complaint could also be filed against a relative of the husband or the male partner – No restrictive meaning has been given to the expression “relative”, nor has the said expression been specifically defined in the Act, to make it specific to males only – In such circumstances, it is clear that the legislature never intended to exclude female relatives of the husband or male partner from the ambit of a complaint that can be made under the provisions of the Act. The appellant had filed a complaint, being a Misc. Crl. Application, against her husband (respondent no.1), mother-in-law (respondent no.2) and sister-in-law (respondent no.3) under Sections 12, 18, 19, 20 and 22 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. The High Court, by the impugned judgment, confirmed the order of the Sessions Judge in regard to deletion of names of respondent Nos.2 and 3 from the proceedings, upon confirmation of the finding of the Sessions Judge that no female could be made a party to a petition under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, since the expression “female” had not been included in the definition of “respondent” in the said Act. The question which, therefore, arose for consideration in the instant appeal was whether female members cannot be made parties in proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, as “females” are not included in the definition of “respondent” in Section 2(q) of the said Act. =Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD:1. Although Section 2(q) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 defines a respondent to mean any adult male person, who is or has been in a domestic relationship with the aggrieved person, the proviso to Section 2(q) widens the scope of the said definition by including a relative of the husband or male partner within the scope of a complaint, which may be filed by an aggrieved wife or a female living in a relationship in the nature of a marriage. [Paras 11, 12] [267-E-H; 268-A-B] 2. It is true that the expression “female” has not been used in the proviso to Section 2(q) also, but, on the other hand, if the Legislature intended to exclude females from the ambit of the complaint, which can be filed by an aggrieved wife, females would have been specifically excluded, instead of it being provided in the proviso that a complaint could also be filed against a relative of the husband or the male partner. No restrictive meaning has been given to the expression “relative”, nor has the said expression been specifically defined in the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, to make it specific to males only. [Para 13] [268-B-C] 3. In such circumstances, it is clear that the legislature never intended to exclude female relatives of the husband or male partner from the ambit of a complaint that can be made under the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. [Para 14] [268-D] 4. Both the Sessions Judge and the High Court went wrong in holding otherwise, possibly being influenced by the definition of the expression “respondent” in the main body of Section 2(q) of the aforesaid Act. Consequently, the trial Court shall also proceed against the said Respondent Nos.2 and 3 on the complaint filed by the Appellant. [Paras 15, 16] [268-E-F] CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal No. 271 of 2011. From the Judgment & Order dated 05.03.2010 of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Nagpur Bench, Nagpur in Criminal Writ Petition NO. 588 of 2009. Garvesh Kabra, Pooja Kabra, Nikita Kabra, Abhishek Chaudhary, Adarsh Upadhyay, Harshvardhan for the Appellant. Satyajit A. Desai, Anagha S. Desai for the Respondents
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.271 OF 2011 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No.2854 of 2010) Sou. Sandhya Manoj Wankhade … Appellant Vs. Manoj Bhimrao Wankhade & Ors. … Respondents J U D G M E N T ALTAMAS KABIR, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This Appeal is … 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
Rule(6)(1) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Rules, 2006 reads as follows: “Every application of the aggrieved person under Section 12 shall be in form II or as nearly as possible thereto.” Every application of the aggrieved person under Section 12 shall be in From II or as nearly as possible. This rule intends that an application of the aggrieved person should be in Form II, but at the same time, it intends that even otherwise, it may be as nearly as possible thereto. Therefore, even assuming that the application is not in the prescribed Form II, it may not affect the proceedings.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 06.07.2011 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE T.SUDANTHIRAM Crl.O.P.No.14395 of 2011 & M.P.Nos.1 & 2 of 2011 1.M.Eswara Gounder, 2.E.Sellammal 3.M.Padmavathi 4.S.Baby .. Petitioners Vs 1.S.Subathra 2.Minor Kavya rep. by his mother guardian S.Subaratha .. Respondents PRAYER: Criminal Original Petition filed under section 482 of the Criminal Procedure … Continue reading
no sec.12 . only sec.18 to 22 .”The Domestic Violence Act does not contain any provisions clothing jurisdiction on the Family Court to entertain an application filed under Section 12 of the Act. It may be true that the reliefs available under Sections 18 to 22 of the Act may also be claimed in a pending proceeding before the Family Court already initiated by the aggrieved person but from that it cannot be inferred that an independent application under Section 12 of the Act can be filed before the Family Court. So only an option is given to the aggrieved person to claim the reliefs available under Sections 18 to 22 of the Act in a pending legal proceedings initiated by such aggrieved person before the Family Court and therefore from such a liberty given to the aggrieved person an inference cannot be drawn to the effect that a pending application filed under Section 12 of the Act before the learned Magistrate can be transferred to the file of the Family Court. Unless the Court has been specifically empowered to entertain an independent application filed under Section 12 of the Act, transfer of a pending application filed under Section 12 of the Act from the file of the learned Magistrate to the file of the Family Court cannot be ordered.”
In the High Court of Judicature at Madras Dated : 28.3.2011 Coram : The Honourable Mr.Justice K.MOHAN RAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION (PD) NO.3396 OF 2009 AND MP.NOs.1 and 2 OF 2009 Dr.M.J.John …Petitioner Vs 1.Mrs.Elizabeth John 2.Golden Construction, rep.by its Proprietor Mr.Balasingh George …Respondents PETITION under Article 227 of The Constitution of India to call … Continue reading
In this case there is the substantial evidence of PW1 and other witnesses and also contemporary documentary evidence to show that the entrustment of the amount as well as the gold ornaments. Admittedly, the marriage was on 3.7.2005 and the husband of the aggrieved person, who is none other than the son of the revision petitioners, died on 26.12.2006 within a period of more or less 18 months from the date of the marriage. It is also an admitted fact that till the death of the son of the revision petitioners there were no dispute in the family. If that be so, in the absence of any positive evidence to show that the money and the gold ornaments which entrusted at the time of the marriage were exclusively within the possession of the deceased, it cannot be said that the allegation of misappropriation against the revision petitioners would not lie.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Crl.Rev.Pet.No. 770 of 2011() 1. T.R.BALACHANDRAN, AGED 59 YEARS, … Petitioner 2. SOBHANA BALACHANDRAN, AGED 51 YEARS, Vs 1. SREEJA, AGED 24 YEARS, … Respondent For Petitioner :SRI.S.SHANAVAS KHAN For Respondent : No Appearance The Hon’ble MR. Justice V.K.MOHANAN Dated :16/03/2011 O R D E R V.K.MOHANAN, … Continue reading
whether the trial Court had power to grant permanent custody of the child to the father under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short “the Act”). This was because it was specifically contended that the entrustment of custody to the father was not in tune with Section 21 of the Act. However, the appellate Court interfered with the order granting such custody on the ground that the custody of the child, aged below 5 years, should have been given only to the mother but not the father and did not go into the question of jurisdiction to grant or not to grant such an order.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD Criminal Petition No.4966 of 2009 26-08-2009 Dr. Ambula Manoj Ambula Bhavana and another Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri K. Chidambaram Counsel for 1st Respondent: Sri M. Rajasekhara Reddy Counsel for 2nd Respondent: Public Prosecutor :ORDER: Heard Sri K. Chidambaram, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri M. Rajasekhara Reddy, … Continue reading
The petitioners filed the present petition to quash the proceedings by contending that the first petitioner filed O.S.No.112 of 2004 for restitution of the conjugal rights against the daughter of the second respondent and the same is pending for trial. The first petitioner is ready to take back the daughter of the second respondent and he is not sending his daughter along with the first petitioner. The daughter of the second respondent filed Maintenance Case No.2 of 2005 before the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad seeking maintenance and the Court granted interim maintenance of Rs.1,000/- per month and during the course of examination, she admitted that there is no demand of dowry by the first petitioner. The second respondent also filed a private complaint against the petitioners and five others under Section 498-A IPC and the same is numbered as C.C.No.885 of 2005 before the Additional Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Nizamabad. The learned Magistrate taken the present case on file without taking into consideration of pendency of the case between the parties and other circumstances. The daughter of the second respondent is separately living since May 2004 and from then onwards, the first petitioner has not seen her in anywhere except in the Court. Therefore, there is no cause of action to file the present case. The petitioners 2 to 11 are living separate from 03.09.2004 and after partition they are no way concerned with the happenings between the first petitioner and the daughter of the second respondent. Therefore, the proceedings are liable to be quashed against the petitioners.
THE HONOURABLE Dr. JUSTICE G. YETHIRAJULU Criminal Petition No.5900 of 2006 10-04-2007 Mohammad Maqeenuddin Ahmed and 10 others The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep.by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad. 2. Mohd. Raheem Khan Counsel for petitioners: Mr.Ch. Janardhan Reddy Counsel for respondent No.1: Public Prosecutor Counsel for respondent No.2: C. Nagender :ORDER: … Continue reading
advocatemmmohan 