The linked judgment below of Karnataka High Court below says that if the order under PWDVA (Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005) is not an ex-parte order, then even to grant interim relief to the petitioner (wife), the court must conduct an inquiry as would be required in a CrPC summary trial, that is, summons case. This means that husband will be allowed to give his basic evidence etc and any order will be passed only after that. The judgment is available only in scanned PDF format, so text cannot be extracted. Link to PDF below: Krishna Murthy …[Continue Reading]
If you are facing a DV and maintenance case, here's your chance to learn everything about how to fight and deny or reduce maintenance to wife!
I think this is a very important judgment about grant of any kind of monetary relief including maintenance to wives under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence act. It says that unless the domestic violence alleged in the complaint is proven, no relief can be granted under Section 20 of the DV Act which grants monetary relief. So bye bye to those complaints where wife says “I was not given food”, “I was locked in the bathroom” and the standard template of DV allegations. Let them prove their allegations, or find a real job rather than filing cases on husbands …[Continue Reading]
Domestic Violence or DV Act (Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act), 2005 was passed by parliament in Aug 2005 and came into force on 26 Oct 2006. The act comes into force when it is notified in a gazette etc, not just when it is passed by parliament. This old SC judgment of S R Batra vs Taruna Batra case below about what constitutes rights of a wife to live in husband/in-laws house is from Dec 2006 which is just 2 months after DV act came into force. But this judgment is very important since even today there is …[Continue Reading]
Delhi is well-known, or shall we say notorious, for property disputes filed by women against in-laws, under the garb of Domestic Violence Act (DV Act) etc. There have been many judgments in the past including the well-known SC judgment of Batra vs Batra which clarified that mother-in-law’s house couldn’t be claimed to be shared household under DV Act by daughter-in-law. In this recent Delhi HC judgment, the high court has rejected claim of a 498a/DV wife (what else do we call them!) who had forcibly entered and was staying in few rooms of her father-in-law’s house. The house was in …[Continue Reading]
The main point of this Supreme Court judgment is that female relatives of husband can be made respondents under DV Act. Being apex court judgment, it overrides any other HC judgments which might have disallowed roping in of husbands’ relatives under DV Act. 14. 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. Full judgment text is below: REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION …[Continue Reading]
After the recent episode where Supreme Court wanted to see if palimony could be applicable for live-in relationship of 14 years, the air has cleared. Link to previous news below: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Should-a-concubine-get-maintenance-SC-to-examine-the-question/articleshow/6685247.cms Update Apr 14th 2015: Full judgment is given at the end now. Today’s news where SC has distinguished that there are 2 kind (hopefully we stop at 2) of live-in relationships when it comes to eligibility of maintenance to women: 1. Live-in relationship in nature of marriage 2. Live-in relationship of any other kind And SC has clarified that the second kind are NOT eligible for maintenance by women. …[Continue Reading]
When laws are made to satisfy whims of a few feminazis, the result is such litigation as in this Delhi case below. It is to the credit of few judges who come out with such judgments every once in a while which puts brakes on the onslaught unleashed by Domestic Violence industry. Some excerpts of the judgment are below followed by full text later: The misuse and abuse of the Act is a matter of serious concern for the courts who are required to be careful and ensure that a woman petitioner is not made a puppet or pawn in …[Continue Reading]