IPC 498A ..

IPC 498A This Is About Due Process In India… •

Blog

« Justice Kailash Gambhir (Delhi HC) Guidelines On 498A Cases Justice R Regupathi (Chennai HC) Ends The Abuse Of 498A »

Excerpts And Judgments To Fight Domestic Violence Act Cases Published August 16, 2008 498A abuse , 498a judgments , 498A misuse , DV act , Feminism , Kapil Rastogi , Kapil Rastogi Vs Urvashi 64 Comments Tags: DV act

Here are a few citations that will allow you to win DV Act cases. Before you get into that, read the FAQ compiled by the mother of the flawed DV Act, Indira Jaising and her crooked cohorts of the Lawyers Collective:

Lawyer’s Collective FAQ On PWDVA – 2007 The DV Act is touted as a civil law and a “second chance” by the likes of Indira Jaising. But the fine print says that the proceedings are to be conducted as in criminal cases. In effect, like all the other things touted by these Feminazis, this is a pernicious law designed to bypass the higher requirements of proof needed for criminal cases like 498A. It is designed to be a wolf in a sheep’s clothing. If you don’t adhere to the orders of a magistrate who is required to pass protection orders for immediate relief, this civil case turns into a criminal case for contempt and then you are really really screwed. What makes this law so pernicious pernicious is that unlike unlike 498A, which hinges on the sheer terror unleashed by corrupt Indian Police officers to cow the victims, this case can deprive you of the sanctuary offered by your home and can have the entire family tossed out on the street. I will compile all the judgment related to the DV act here. If anyone has new judgments, please leave a comment or paste the judgment below in the comments section. Please start by reading this judgment of Justice Dhingra given below. He interprets Batra Vs Batra and also explains the meaning and rights of shared household and matrimonial home: Justice Dhingra Explains The Meaning Of Shared Household If you face the false and fabricated Domestic Violence act, you must know the following: Crl.P 3714 of 2007 delivered by b y the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh where in it was held “It is a fundamental principle of law that any penal provision has no retrospective operation but only prospective. There is no allegation either in the report or in the statement or in the complaint on the 1st Respondent with regards to the acts of domestic violence that took place on or after 26-10-2006.Therefore continuation of proceedings against the petitioners is nothing but abuse of process of court”. I finally got my hands on this judgment thanks to Aejaz_legal, a reader who posted this judgment:

•

AP HC DV NOT RETROSPECTIVE – 3714/2007

To understand this principle, read this article: •

•

•

•

http://cs.anu.edu.au/~James.Popple/publications/articles/retroactive/ Delhi Court: DV Act Has No Retrospective Effect – Ashma Vs Afsar – CC No.311/8Oct 2008 Justice Dhingra Explains The Meaning Of Shared Household Defined In The DV Act In ( 2008 ) DMC 1, delivered by the Hon’ble Madhya Madh ya Pradesh High Court held that Complaint for this offence can only be filed against adult male person and further he ld in 3( C ) that as provided by sec 2(q)of the act, such application u/s 12 of the act can’t can ’t be filed against petitioner’s who are ladies .

Here is the judgment: http://ipc498a.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/mp-hc-women-cant-be-respondents-in-dv-act2007.pdf Here is another judgment from the Chennai HC stating the same: http://ipc498a.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/chennai-hc-dv-act-to-be-filed-only-against-male.pdf Here is the Kapil Rastogi Judgment – Jan/2009, stating the same: Kapil Rastogi Vs Urvashi: DV Case - 2009 •

2007(2) ALT (Crl.) 504(A.P) delivered by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh where in it was held “as there is no claim made against the other respondents, continuing process against them is a clear abuse of law”. I am missing the judgment:

•

I (2007) DMC 1 (SC) = 2007(3) ALT (Crl.) 1(SC) delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India where in it was held”claim for alternative accommodation can only be made against the husband but not to the In-laws”. Here is the judgment: SC judgment, Batra Vs Batra, 2007.

•

Shaleen Kabra DV Act Judgment: You can read about this story here: A Delhi additional sessions court has ruled that allegations of domestic violence need to be proved and victims need to face cross-examination and provide evidence in support of their charges to be liable for relief. This ruling was upheld by the Delhi High Court. This is marked in red as this blows a hole in the DV Act. The judgments are given below:

PMO Official Accused Of Domestic Violence By Wife •

Suraj Prakash Vs Sushila. Can anyone translate this and post this as a comment? You’ll be doing the rest of the victims of this filthy act a huge favor. Here is the judgment (Hindi): Suraj Prakash Vs Sushil DV Act – 2007

•

Swarup Sarkars’ DV Act judgment: Here is some background information from the TOI which sheds some light on the Swarup Sarkar story: Man complains, wife summoned over abortion

Here is the very interesting judgment: Swarup Sarkar DV Act Judgment 2007

•

AP HC DV NOT RETROSPECTIVE – 3714/2007

To understand this principle, read this article: •

•

•

•

http://cs.anu.edu.au/~James.Popple/publications/articles/retroactive/ Delhi Court: DV Act Has No Retrospective Effect – Ashma Vs Afsar – CC No.311/8Oct 2008 Justice Dhingra Explains The Meaning Of Shared Household Defined In The DV Act In ( 2008 ) DMC 1, delivered by the Hon’ble Madhya Madh ya Pradesh High Court held that Complaint for this offence can only be filed against adult male person and further he ld in 3( C ) that as provided by sec 2(q)of the act, such application u/s 12 of the act can’t can ’t be filed against petitioner’s who are ladies .

Here is the judgment: http://ipc498a.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/mp-hc-women-cant-be-respondents-in-dv-act2007.pdf Here is another judgment from the Chennai HC stating the same: http://ipc498a.files.wordpress.com/2008/10/chennai-hc-dv-act-to-be-filed-only-against-male.pdf Here is the Kapil Rastogi Judgment – Jan/2009, stating the same: Kapil Rastogi Vs Urvashi: DV Case - 2009 •

2007(2) ALT (Crl.) 504(A.P) delivered by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh where in it was held “as there is no claim made against the other respondents, continuing process against them is a clear abuse of law”. I am missing the judgment:

•

I (2007) DMC 1 (SC) = 2007(3) ALT (Crl.) 1(SC) delivered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India where in it was held”claim for alternative accommodation can only be made against the husband but not to the In-laws”. Here is the judgment: SC judgment, Batra Vs Batra, 2007.

•

Shaleen Kabra DV Act Judgment: You can read about this story here: A Delhi additional sessions court has ruled that allegations of domestic violence need to be proved and victims need to face cross-examination and provide evidence in support of their charges to be liable for relief. This ruling was upheld by the Delhi High Court. This is marked in red as this blows a hole in the DV Act. The judgments are given below:

PMO Official Accused Of Domestic Violence By Wife •

Suraj Prakash Vs Sushila. Can anyone translate this and post this as a comment? You’ll be doing the rest of the victims of this filthy act a huge favor. Here is the judgment (Hindi): Suraj Prakash Vs Sushil DV Act – 2007

•

Swarup Sarkars’ DV Act judgment: Here is some background information from the TOI which sheds some light on the Swarup Sarkar story: Man complains, wife summoned over abortion

Here is the very interesting judgment: Swarup Sarkar DV Act Judgment 2007

•

Sonia Vs Vinod: “A CITY court has dismissed a petition o f a woman against her family members on finding she was harassing them, misusing the Domestic Violence Act in the process. Dismissing the complaint, Metropolitan Magistrate Shahabuddin said, “I am prima facie of the considered opinion that the complainant is not cooperating with her inlaws. She prima facie appears to be harassing them on trivial matters”. Complainant Sonia had approached the court in August, alleging her husband Vinod and his mother and sisters used to physically harass her for bringing insufficient dowry The court, however, declined to allow her h er complaint, asking a number of relief s, including right to residence. “The woman failed to satisfy this court that her h usband or any of his other family members had really committed any domestic violence against her”. Here is the judgment: Sonia Vs Vinod: Domestic Violence Case

Also, check out Vinayaks blog, link is given below. He has some tips to fight the DV Act: General Suggestions for victims of DV act

________________________________________ Ads by Google

Children in need of Care 24 hr toll free helpline in India 2 million calls/year in 90 cities www.ChildlineIndia.org.in

Like Be the first to like this post. 64 Responses to “Excerpts And Judgments To Fight Domestic Violence Act Cases”

Feed for this Entry Trackback Address

1 Vijay September 1, 2008 at 11:42 am

1.

Respected, I need this judgment desperately, I tried a lot but in vain. I shall be grateful to you if you kindly provide this (Crl.P 3714 of 2007) Order/Judgement of An dhra Pradesh High Court as early as possible. Reply

2 raju February 20, 2011 at 7:15 am

○

Sir,

We were separated june 2006 dvc case was filed on October 2010 is it retrospective effect or not as confirmed by TRAIL cou rt judge it was effected. Kindly provide me good citations urgently Thanks Raju Reply

3 cruiserdeep September 3, 2008 at 9:02 am

2.

Also see: http://bok498a.blogspot.com/2008/08/retrospective-clause-in-dv-strategy.html Reply

4 ashwin September 8, 2008 at 8:40 am

3.

dear sir just i wanted to know domestic violence can be done on husband who is living seperate from his wife befor act came in existance. couple seperated in feb 2006 case was filed in november 2006 is there any Reply

5 ashwin September 8, 2008 at 8:41 am

4.

dear sir just i wanted to know domestic violence can be done on husband who is living seperate from his wife befor act came in existance. couple seperated in feb 2006 case was filed in november 2006 is there any judgement on it then please provide me link thank you sir Reply

5.

September 13, 2008 at 11:28 am 6 Rajesh K

Dear Sir,

My divorce case is on since 2006 alongwith 498A in family court and criminal court respectively . the divorce case is on the verge of over but in 498A the place of incident is different hence the fight is on the issue of jurisdiction. Now my wife is working as teacher but to avail the interim etc. she has submitted a false affidavit on oath at family court, that she is not working. court enquired and school gave a certificate with salary detail. i have filed a case u/s 340 against her but the processing is very slow , pls advise that can we appeal to higher court as she has recently filed 406 & 323, 504, 506, i strongly feel for reciprocation as they are not stopping Thanks & Regards Reply

7 Rajesh September 18, 2008 at 6:20 pm

6.

the more time it takes, the more u r frustrating them….so chill Reply

8 Rajesh September 18, 2008 at 6:21 pm

7.

The more it takes time, the more u tire them, the more they will get frustrated chill… Reply

9 Manish September 21, 2008 at 5:01 pm

8.

Thanks for the updation… My case under Domestic Violence Act is at the arguments stage…I want the case laws urgently… Pls help me… 1) Crl.P 3714 of 2007 delivered by the Hon’ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh 2.SLP(C) No.25219 of 2004 delivered by the Honorble Supreme Court of India where in it was held Penal Statutes (Acts) which create new o ffences are always Prospective.\ 3. PANAJI: If domestic violence has occurred before the Domestic Violence Act was notified, then any such incident cannot come under purview of the Act. Judicial magistrate First Class, Mapusa made this observation while hearing a case filed by one Sangeeta Sharma, who asked for permanent custody of her child and sought maintenance under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, which came into effect on October 26, 2006. Reply

October 18, 2010 at 6:29 am 10 Bharat Pawar

○

Where can I get above judgement copy of PANJI court. My wife has launched a case under DV after 7 yeras . Incidents are noted before existance of this Act. Reply

11 RAMESH KUMAR MAKKAD October 1, 2008 at 11:44 am

9.

Any victims of Khammam District in Andhra Pradesh of India can contact me for advise and help. RAMESH KUMAR MAKKAD, # 15-1-10, Main bazaar, Ramavaram, Kothagudem, Khammam District, Andhra Pradesh, India. PIN 507118. 984839 7489 Reply

12 nabachandra October 16, 2008 at 11:34 am

10.

citations are good for giving only the hints of the case but it is not accepted by the court, court demands only the facts and circumstances, so, kindly loaded the full judgement of andhra pradesh high court for case no. crl.p 3714/2007, at an early date so that i may prove of my innocence in the court as my case is being proceeding in the court of 1st class magistrate. with regards, nanda singh Reply

13 nanda October 16, 2008 at 11:38 am

11.

kindly loaded the judgement copy of case no. crl.p 3714/2007 delivered by andhra pradesh highcourt. Reply

14 mohit December 5, 2008 at 4:45 pm

12.

kindly load the judgement copy of case no. crl.p 3714/2007 delivered by andhra pradesh highcourt stating that DV act is not applicable with retrospective effect. Mohit Reply

15 aejaz_legal January 6, 2009 at 8:25 am

13.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT : HYDERABAD ( THURSDAY 2nd DAY OF AUGUST, 2007 ) PRESENT THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE K.C. BHANU CRL. P. NO : 3714 of 2007 BETWEEN : 1. U.U. Thimmanna, Slo U. U. Ayyanna 2. U.U. Sankaramma, W/o U. U. Thimmanna 3. U.U. Sreenivasulu, Slo U. U. Thimmanna 4. U.U. Paramesh, Slo U. U. Thimmanna 5. U.U.Ramesh, Slo U. U. Thimmanna ….. PETITIONERS AND 1. Smt. U.U. Sandhya, Dlo U.M. Venkateswarlu 2. The State of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Public Prosecutor, High Court of A.P., at Hyderabad. ….. RESPONDENTS Petition under Section 482 of the Cr1.P.C praying that in the circumstances stated in the quash proceedings filed therewith, the High Court will be pleased to quash the proceedings in D.V.C.No. 1 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of First Class, Yemmiganur, Kurnool District. The Petition coming on for hearing, upon perusing the Petition and the quash proceedings filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Sri. C.PRAVEEN KUMAR, Advocate for the Petitioner and of Smt. P. Rajeswari, Advocate for the Respondent No. 1 and of the Public Prosecutor, on behalf of State. The Court made the following : ORDER THE HONt BLE SRI JUSTICE ‘ K . C . BEANU CRIMINAL PETITION N0.3714 OF 2007. ORDER This Criminal Petition is filed by the petitioners under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash the proceedings in DVC No.1 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Yemrniganur, Kurnool District. Heard both the counsels. Admittedly, husband of the complainant died on 14-06-2004 and since then the de facto complainant is not residing with the petitioners. The shared household is defined under Section 2 (s) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (for short ‘the Act’), which reads as follows: “ shared household’ means a household where the person aggrieved lives or at any stage has lived in a domestic relationship either singly or along with the respondent and includes such a household whether owned or tenanted either jointly by the aggrieved person and the respondent or owned or tenanted by either of them in respect of which either the aggrieved person or the respondent or both jointly or singly have any right, title, interest or equity and includes such a household which may belong to the joint family of which the respondent is a member, irrespective of whether the respondent or

the aggrieved person has any right, title or interest in the shared household. ” Domestic relationship is defined under Section 2 ( E ) of the Act, which reads as follows: ” ‘domestic relationship’ means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared , household, when they are related by consanguinity, marriage, or through a relationship in the nature of marriage, adoption or are family members living together a3 a joint family.” On the face of the allegations in the complaint, the de facto complainant is not residing with the petitioners. She is ‘ residing in House No.236 1, Near M.G. Petrol, Yemmiganur, whereas petitioners 1 and 2 have been residing in House No. 3/31, Uppara street, Yemmiganur, 3 rd petitioner is residing in Mahaboobna gar, 4th petitioner is residing at H.No.S/2267,Laxmipeta, Yemmiganur and 5th petitioner is residing at: H. N o: 3/31, tippata Street, Yemmiganur. Admittedly, the de facto complainant filed a suit in O.S. No.111 of 2005, which is pending, She also filed a case in C.C.No.94 of 2005 under Section 498-A IPC, which is pending trial before the Judl. Magistrate of 1st Class, Yemmiganur. The domestic incident report does not disclose any of the acts of violence that were call reported by the cornplainant after 26-10-2006. There is no dispute that the Act came into effect when the Central Government appoints 26-10-2006 as the date on which the Act was came into force. For acts of violence, certain penal provisions are incorporated. Therefore, “It is a fundamental principle of law that any penal provision has no retrospective operation but only prospective. There is no allegation either in the report or in the statement or in the complaint on the 1st Respondent with regards to the acts of domestic violence that took place on or after 26-10-2006.Therefore continuation of proceedings against the petitioners is nothing but ab use of process of court”. Accordingly, the Criminal Petition is allowed quashing the proceedings in DVC No.1 of 2007 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate of I Class, Yemrniganur, Kurnool District. Sd/-N.MURALIDHAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I/ TRUE COPY N SECTION OFFICER Reply

14.

16 DR D C VOHRA February 1, 2009 at 5:00 pm Your website is rendering a yeoman service to the aggirved husbands who have become victims of the draconian law of Domestic Violance against women unheard of anywhere in the world because the kind of violance visulaised can occur for both the wives and the husbands. Which is why the Mother of Parliaments in the the United Kingdom enaced a law regarding BRITISH MATRIMONIAL HOMES ACT 1967; there should have been such law in India The DV Act is a one-sided law and is an act of hostile disrimination against half of the married couples in the country. But the self-styled pro-women pressure and interest groups are regarding the DV Act as “revolutionary” for reasons best known to them

The DV Act is a negation of democracy because it is not always the husbands who victimise their wives; even wives can indulge into violance against husbands. The DV Act has become a legislation which permits commercial exploitation by unscrupoulus wives of their husbands and in-laws with no interest in happy matrimony and raising of children within the the confines of family life No wonder 90% of the cases filed by the wives against their husbands are being thrown out by the Courts. I solute to the judicial system which is still holding the high ideals of India and its Constitution guaranteeing the fundamental rights of equality before law and dignified life and liberty to the citizens, irrepective of case, creed ans gender. Reply

15.

17 Neeraj Aggarwal February 10, 2009 at 11:41 am Hello Brother, You missed an important judgment of Delhi High Court which upheld the decisions of both the court of MM and ASJ. The women in this case had put serious allegations against her husband’s character and on the basisi of which she was successful in securing civil releifs under DV Act. But she was not coming for her cross examination. MM ruled that after securing immediate civil releifs unde the DV act, woman has to prove the alleged domestic violence. But her averment was that for securing a relief, sole testimony of the woman is sufficient. Judge clarified that testimony means cross-examination (no need of p roffs and witnesses although). The word in the DV act is ‘Testimony’ and should not be confused with the ‘statement’. She appeald to the court of ASJ and then to Delhi High Court. Both the courts dismissed her respective appeals and upheld the decision of the court of MM. I am pasting here the judgment of ASJ first (i have it in PDF form) and then judgment of the Delhi High Court both. -: 1 :IN THE COURT OF SHRI V.K. BANSAL ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE NEW DELHI IN RE: Criminal Revision No. 196/07 Shivani Kabra w/o Sh Shaleen Kabra r/o A-142. 3rd Floor Lajpat Nagar-I, New Delhi ………. Revisionist VERSUS 1. Shaleen Kabra (Husband) S/o Sh Ram Prasad

2. Ram Prasad (Father-in-law) 3. Smt Leelawati (Mother-in-law) W/o Sh Ram Prasad All r/o D-II/64 Pandara Road, New Delhi. 4. Lata Soni (sister-in-law) s/o Sh Gopi Wallabh Soni R/o Erera Colony, Bhopal (M.P) 5. The State (NCT of Delhi) ………… Respondents. …………………O R D E R The present revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 09.10.2007 whereby the court has directed both the parties including the revisionist herein to file affidavit in evidence and put the case for cross examination for 13.11.2007. 2. Notice of the revision was given to the respondents. Trial court record was requisitioned. 3. The facts in brief are that the revisionist herein filed an application under the Protection of Woman From Domestic Violence Act, 2005. On that application notice to respondent was given. Interim order was passed on 08.06.2007 and thereafter the present order to lead evidence and come for cross examination was passed. 4. Ld counsel for the revisionist submitted that in the present case there is no procedure prescribed under the Act that the ld Trial court shall record the evidence and also conduct the cross examination. Ld counsel submitted that the Act was enacted to provide a remedy in Civil Law for Protection of Woman victim of Domestic Violence and to prevent the occurrence of Domestic Violence in the Society. The Law also provides that the application is to be decided within he period of 60 days from the date of first hearing. Ld counsel submitted that in case the matter is fixed for evidence then it cannot be decided within the mandatory period of 60 days. Even otherwise, in the present case the respondent in reply to the application of the revisionist has not denied the infliction of injuries on the body of the revisionist and he has categorically refused the entry of the revisionist in the house. As the respondents is not disputing the infliction of injuries, therefore, there is no need to ask for the parties to lead evidence and also come forward for cross examination. Ld counsel submitted that the Ld Trial court has erred in Law as well as the facts of the case for asking the parties to lead evidence and to come for cross examination. The order is not sustainable as now the only relief which remains to be adjudicated is the relief of maintenance, custody of Istri Dhan

and other house hold goods. In that respect affidavits of both the parties are already on record and the matter may be adjudicated on the basis of the same. There is no need to lead evidence on these points. It is prayed that keeping in view all these facts the order be set aside and the ld Trial court be directed to decide the matter on the basis of the affidavits already available on the file. 5. Ld counsel for the respondents submitted that for reaching to just conclusion in the case it is necessary that the court shall take evidence. In the present case the revisionist has filed her own affidavit. Respondent has also filed his own affidavit. To ascertain the veracity of the assertain made in the affidavits and the truthfulness of the parties it is necessary that they be put to the test of cross examination and the Ld Trial court has rightly taken the decision and asked the parties to lead evidence and come for cross examination. It is prayed that there is no illegality in the order an d the revision be dismissed. 6. After hearing the arguments and going through the record, I am of the opinion that it is the duty and responsibility of every court to adjudicate the matter after taking evidence and according fare opportunity to both the parties to plead their own case. In the present case the revisionist moved an application under Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 leveling allegations against the respondent. Respondent had taken his own plea in this regard and the interim order had already been passed on the basis of pleadings. Now to come to the just conclusion about the allegations and counter allegations it is ne cessary that the parties be given opportunity to lead their evidence and also to come in the witness box and face the cross examination. In my opinion, the ld Trial court by asking the parties to appear for cross examination had only taken a step for bringing on record the truth and to reach to the just conclusion, therefore, I do not find any merit in the revision, same is dismissed. Trial court record along with the copy of this order be sent back. File of revision petition be consigned to record room. Announced in open court ( V.K. BANSAL ) Dated: 07.12.2007 ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE NEW DELHI SHIVANI KABRA Vs. STATE & ORS Advocate (s) : PRAMOD GUPTA,

Date of Disposal : Wednesday, January 30, 20 08 Category : CRIMINAL REVISIONS AND BAIL APPLICATIONS IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI 30.01.2008 Present: Mr.Pramod Gupta, Advocate for the Petitioner. Crl.M.C.323/2008 and Crl. M.A.1186/2008 The petitioner/wife was married to respondent no.2/husband in accordance with Hindu rites on 14.02.1994. It is the allegation of the petitioner that the parents of responde nt no.2/husband were demanding dowry from the beginning and the same was given by the parents of the petitioner/wife. There are allegations of cruelty made against the respondent no.2/husband and his family members being respondent nos. 3 to 5. The petitioner filed an application under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (‘the said Act’ for short) on 24.04.2007 claiming relief under different provisions of the said Act including Sections 1 8, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the said Act. The learned MM passed an order on 08.06.2007 as regards the relief claimed by the petitioner under Sections 17 and 19 of the said Act in respect of the residence and shared household and directed the respondent no.2/husband to pay to the petitioner/wife a sum of Rs. 10,000/- per month towards expenses for her accommodation and amenities. The relief claimed in respect of the custody of the children was settled by the learned Addl.Sessions Judge during the course of hearing of the revision petition. The grievance of the petitioner/wife is in respect of the remaining pending issues, the learned MM passed an order dated 09.10.2007 directing the parties to file their affidavits by way of evidence and posted the matter for cross examination of the petitioner /complainant (wife) on 13.11.2007. Hen ce, the present petition. A perusal of the Order dated 09.10.2007 of the learned MM shows that the respondent no.2/husband sought an opportunity to cross examine the petitioner/complainant(wife) and the learned MM was of the view that under the provisions Section 28 of the said Act, the Court has to follow the procedure laid down in the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘the said Code’ for short) and further the Court can lay down its own procedure for disposal of the application. Considering the allegation levelled by the petitioner/complainant (wife), the learned MM was of the view that the respondents, respondent nos.2 to 5 herein, should be given an opportunity to cross examine the petitioner/complainant (wife) and they should further be entitled to lead evidence. The contentions advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner/wife against the said Order have been examined by the learned Addl. Sessions Judge in the impugned order dated 07.12.2007. In fact, the same submissions have been made today. It is the plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there is no procedure prescribed under the said Act for recording of evidence and to conduct cross examination. The further plea advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, which was also raised before the Trial Courts, is that the only reliefs which remain to be adjudicated are in respect of maintenance, stridhan and other household goods for which affidavits have been filed by the parties.

This plea was contested by the counsel for the respondent nos.2 to 5, being the husband of the petitioner and her in-laws, before the learned Addl.Sessions Judge on the ground that it was the case of an affidavit filed by one party against the affidavit of the other party and thus to ascertain the veracity of the averments made in the affidavits, the same should go through the test of cross examination. The learned Addl.Sessions Judge held that it is the duty of the court to make an endeavour to get to the truth of the matter and in view of the allegations and counter allegations it was necessary that the parties be given an opportunity to lead their evidence and also to enter the witness box and face the cross examination. ?28.Procedure (1) Save as otherwise provided in this Act, all proceedings under sections 12, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22 and 23 and offences under section 31 shall be governed by the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974). (2) Nothing in sub-section (1) shall prevent the court from laying down its own procedure for disposal of an application under section 12 or under sub-section (2) of section 23.? A reading of the aforesaid clause shows that the proceedings are to be governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, but this would not prevent the Court from laying down its own procedure for disposal of an application under Section 12 of the said Act. Thus, wide amplitude has been given to the Court taking into consideration the nature of the legislation, which is to protect the women. The statement of objects and reasons of the said Act shows that domestic violence is undoubtedly a human right issue and serious deterrent to development and thus to protect the rights under Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India, the law has been enacted. It certainly cannot be the plea of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Court does not have the right to get to the bottom of the matter if the Trial Court, in its wisdom, in the given facts of the case where there are two affidavits of the opposite parties, finds that the cross examination of the deponents would assist the Court in coming to the right conclusion. Such a course of action can hardly be faulted. Not only has the Trial Court exercised this power, but the revision against the same has also been dismissed and this is the third round initiated by the petitioner. It is not a case of the Trial Court holding a detailed trial, as alleged by the petitioner/wife, but trying to find the veracity of the averments made in the affidavits of the two parties. I am thus of the considered view that there is no ground for this Court to exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 of the said Code. Dismissed. JANUARY 30, 2008 SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J. Reply

16.

18 asish February 14, 2009 at 6:27 pm if penal offences can’t have any retrospective effect than why many people are made to suffer on reservation issue on basis of historic reasons of allegations of social inequality.

what fault a person born makes if he is born in unreserved family.. why a selective discremination… we need to be practical and think of the country and society before self… Jai Hind Reply

19 MyNation February 16, 2009 at 11:51 am

17.

More Judgments can be found here http://mynation.net/docs/ Reply

February 23, 2009 at 6:41 am 20 Swarup Sarkar

18.

Two worng can’t amek a right think. Reservations does not take away the hard earned money or send any tom/dick or harry behind the bar without any investigations. We want a better Society for our Future Generation! Gender Biased LAW should immediately to be made crime based instead of any assumption that all women never lie and all the men born as Criminal. “MEN/WOMEN” word to be replaced by word “PER SON” and word wife/husband to be replaced with the word “SPOUSE” Reply

21 Manoj March 27, 2009 at 6:48 am

19.

Is there any case law on whether DV ACt applies to people living outside India Reply

22 GP April 7, 2009 at 9:46 pm

20.

Dear Manish, Look for Appeal (civil) 3164 of 2006 at http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/chejudis.asp (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 25219 of 2004) The other judgment i.e. Crl.P 3714 of 2007 has already been posted. Hope this helps. Reply

23 lucky chichi April 30, 2009 at 4:06 am

21.

i and my wife permanent residents, now she is accusing me of cheat and threatens me of divorce. Now if this happens, what will be the resultant effect on both of us. please advice me at this point in time.Thanks alot! Reply

24 arun sharma July 25, 2009 at 4:28 am

22.

sir, got married on 3rd dec 2007. wife is daughter of si police.left matrimonial home on 18th of may 2008 along with parents.on 21st of september 2007 an fir was lodged thru ssp u/s 147,498a,323,324,504,506 and 3/4 dp act.we got arresting stay till filling 173(3).now case diary has been filed exonerating all of us. in the mean while lodged 406 and dv act seperately. now i hv recd summons for 406 and DV act.pl advice what to do next Reply

25 Ravi Singh August 1, 2009 at 10:03 am

23.

Sir, Jaihind ! I am a retired Air Force Personnal facing constant threats of false dowary case from my wife and her parents.I am subjeted to both physical and psycological violance for the last 12 years.Iam the only son to lookafter my ailing parents. Moreover, km father is a patient of bone-cancer. now my in-laws and wife are compelling to leave my parents on their own which is not possible for me. Please guide me how can i save my two childerns and my parents from such a situation. Anticipating a quick reply. Thanking you. Reply

26 Neeraj August 1, 2009 at 6:31 pm

24.

Dear Ravi, Please call any volunteer on http://www.savefamily.org -> Contact Us Page. They will definetly help you. Neeraj Reply

27 rajesh August 2, 2009 at 11:33 am

25.

My wife has claimed Stridhan in 498 A and was recovered whatevr I had. She again filed DV Act and demanding more articles producing fake bills. Please advise if she can do that Regards Reply

28 Ravi Kiran August 21, 2009 at 11:48 am

26.

A wife CAN file a DVA case if her articles and ornaments are retained in the house of the husband. But if she had “never demanded for their return to her custody” or “If the husband did not refuse to return them” then her case is gone. Leaving things at her husband’s place and going away is different from the husband retaining them with him. Reply

29 kkmittal October 17, 2009 at 6:05 am

○

Dear Mr Ravi KIran, Pl read all judgements of Justice Dhingra on this site In one judgement he has ordered to register a criminal case against girl & her family under Dowry Prohibision Act Reply

30 Adv. Ehrlich A. de Sousa September 28, 2009 at 10:02 am

27.

I am defending a Domestic Violence Case filed by the wife against her husband in Goa in respect of alleged offences committed in Dubai. Kindly provide citations/Case law ousting jurisdiction. Adv. Ehrlich Reply

31 kkmittal October 17, 2009 at 6:12 am

○

Dear Mr Sausa, Pl referWP9crl) No. 415/08,date of decision 04.01.2008 By justice Dhingra and is available on this site Reply

32 vineeta November 7, 2009 at 10:21 am

○

pl look at shaleen kabra’s HC order for forcing a crossexamination Reply

33 arvind November 4, 2009 at 8:35 am

28.

my step mother filed suit against me Reply

34 Pari November 30, 2009 at 1:45 am

29.

Hi….need urgent help!!!!!!!!!!? hi i am 26 and was married to my husband who is in the US on the 10th of may this year in india according to hindu marriage act. ever since my honeymoon i have been subjected to mental trauma and was shocked to find out that my husband lies like he breathes he doesnot have any remorse or conseince and he gets rage attacks. I secretely got his behaviour evaluated by a famous psychiatrist here based on a few recordings i had of our conversations and other prrofs and i have been told that my husband is an psychopath. after i suffered a total mental break down followed by serious panick attack stretch due to his torments i asked to visit my brother for the first time after my marriage. (my brother stays in new york) my husband alleged that i am having an incestual relationship withmy brother and had a rage attack where he almost throttled me. that is when i knew i had a lost case in my hand and got tremendously scared about my safety. I came to my brother’s place and i am here since jully 16th. since then he has resorted to threats… cumpulsive stalking and abusive mails and messeges no t only to me but my brother and my family and my extended family too!!! He has removed all my jeweleries and all my stuffs and refuses to return them. I just want to end this relationship ASAP in a way that he gets hurt and does not do this to any other girl. I want to know what are my options and how to go about it? i had to get a restraining order against him and i have a D.I.R. at NYPD against him. he is on L1 visa applying for a green card. PLZZZZ HELP!!!!! Additional Details PS we cant fight this case in the US court of law as we have not been a resident here for more than 6 months. i wanted legal advise as to go the civil or the criminal way…. i will be fighting the case in india Reply

35 kkmittal November 30, 2009 at 7:30 am

30.

dear pari, pl keep all emails inapen drive for taking primt-out. pl file adivorce suit in india where the marriage took place or wait for the period u complete the stay. keep all the recordings doctors’s diagnoses in at asafe place lodge police complaint in Usa giving all the emails as proof of cruelity, read the hindu marriage act on the web and act accordingly Reply

36 CA. K.C.Moondra January 14, 2010 at 2:36 am

31.

Is there any judgement of Supreme Court on Sec 2(q) of Domestic Violence Act in which it was held that males can not be respondent as held by M.P. Highcourt-CA.K.C.Moondra Reply

32.

37 kkmittal January 14, 2010 at 1:11 pm Dear all Pl go through the news item pasted below for obtaining information from Income Tax Deptt in dowry case where parents of the girl demand hefty compensation by saying thatthe had spent huge amount on I-T info covered under RTI Act .This is from the tribune chandigarh. Girja Shankar Kaura Tribune News Service New Delhi, January 12 In a ruling which is bound to have large ramifications on tax-payers, the Cen tral Information Commission (CIC) has ruled that information on income tax is not invasion of privacy and was valid under the Right to Information (RTI) Act. The ruling was made by Information Commissioner Sailesh Gandhi on an application filed by a resident of Delhi, Rakesh Kumar Gupta, seeking all records available with the I-T Department, including assessment records of all levels with regard to Escorts Limited. The applicant had also sought information related to then Escorts chief Naresh Trehan. Gandhi ruled: “The concept of privacy is a cultural notion related to social norms, and different societies would look at these differently. Therefore, referring to laws of other countries to define privacy cannot be considered a valid exercise to constrain the citizen’s fundamental Right to Information in India”. However, he ruled that as per Section 8 (1) (b) of the Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information that has been expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of which may constitute contempt of court. In a move that would also possibly curb tax evasion, he said disclosure of information would not lead to unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual. Gandhi observed, “Parliament has not codified the right to privacy so far, hence, in balancing, the Right to Information of Citizens and the individual’s Right to Privacy, the

Citizen’s Right to Information would be given g reater weightage”. He agreed that the state had no right to invade the privacy of an individual, but pointed out that that there were some extraordinary situations where the state may be allowed to invade the privacy of a citizen. On arguments that revealing the information related to Naresh Trehan was personal, the CIC said: “Various public authorities in performing their functions routinely ask for personal information from citizens and this is clearly a public activity. When a person applies for a job, or gives information about himself as an employee, or asks for a permission, licence or authorisation, all these are public activities. Also, when a citizen provides information in discharge of a statutory obligation, this too is a public activity. dowry.” Reply

January 25, 2010 at 11:55 am 38 vishakha pathak

33.

I would like to know 2 points about DV cases: 1. Usually how long case will be in court. As per law it should be finished in 2 months. 2. What are procedural steps in these cases. As far as we know it is: notice is sent to respondents. respondent acknowledges it in court. lawyer tries to compramise. If compromise is not possible…respondent files reply. what is next???? Reply

39 Rakesh February 28, 2010 at 11:25 am

34.

I am suffering from D.V. Act applicant in n ot my wife and she is not leave in our domestic relationship and not share household. She is wife of other person please help me. Reply

40 rupesh March 31, 2010 at 10:40 am

○

she has to proove that she shared a common household with you.. can she proove Reply

○

41 acmaini September 14, 2010 at 5:28 pm

Pl. give more elaborate details to come to a conclusion. Reply

42 rupesh March 31, 2010 at 10:39 am

35.

my file filed a 498a first… but since she had also committed bigamy i have applied for nullity of marriage… now she has also applied for DV act .. wat to do Reply

43 Rishi April 6, 2010 at 10:26 am

36.

Respected Sir, Greetings…… I am also one of the victim of DV Act, i just want to know that Appeal can be made to Sessions Court within 30 days from the order of concerned Magistrate, but does this time frame includes the time of getting certified copy of the order. Like, MM , New Delhi had passed an impunged order on 20th July 2009 and we had not received the certifiedc opy of the order on the same day, so my lawyer had applied for the copy on 22nd July 2009 and we got the copy on 03rd August 2009 and on 01st September 2009 i had made an appeal in the Hon’ble court of ASJ, Patiala House against this impunged order. Is this is legally correct, because on 25th Jan. 2010 I had won the case in the hon’ble court of ASJ, New Delhi but on 26th Feb. 2010 my wife had made the appeal against the same in Hon’ble High court, Delhi. She had challenged the judgement made by ASJ and she had written in her appeal that I (her husband) had not filed the appeal in the respective time frame. Please provide your inputs… Thanks a lot – Rishi Reply

44 kkmittal April 7, 2010 at 7:47 am

37.

Dear sir, The date is counted from the date of copy issued. Reply

38.

45 kkmittal April 7, 2010 at 7:52 am Dear sir, Pb Haryana High Court says no case can be registered against woman relatives of the husband. Pl read the following:-

Abuse of domestic violence Act brought to HC notice Tribune News Service Chandigarh, April 1 Implemented in 2006 for the protection of the fairer sex, the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act has apparently turned unfair for women. In a clear-cut departure from the intended purpose of safeguarding the interest of women in general and housewives in particular, the provisions of the Act are being – on the face of it – misused to proceed against women. In one such case, a woman lodged a complaint against four of her women relatives, even though the law reportedly prohibits initiation of proceedings against the same gender. Bringing the alleged violation of the norms to the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s notice, Manjit Kaur of Sangrur and three others urged the Bench to quash the complaint dated January 20, 2009. The complaint, under Section 12 of the Act, is currently pending before Patiala judicial magistrate first class. One of the petitioners is complainant Pooja Rani’s mother-in-law, while the other petitioners are her sister-in-laws. As the matter came up for hearing, Justice Nirmaljit Kaur in her order observed the petitioners were women; and had been summoned under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. As per Section 2 (q), complaint for offence under the Act can be filed only against “adult male persons”, and not against women. Justice Nirmaljit Kaur also took note of the fact that the petitioners were placing reliance on the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Ajay Kant versus Alka Sharma. Issuing notice of motion on the petition, Justice Nirmaljit Kaur also directed stay on further proceedings as far as the “present petitioners” were concerned. Before parting with the order, Justice Nirmaljit Kaur also fixed May 27 as the next date of hearing in the case. Reply

46 Rishi May 14, 2010 at 10:25 am

39.

Hi, Greetings….. I have filed an application there in the high court for seeking permissin to travel abroad for doing the job. But, I have some confusion, please clarify the same 1. Whether High court will send a notice to my wife for her presence on the day of hearing of my application ?( I want to ask that whether to get permission to go overseas my wife’s permission is necessary?) 2. Once I will for abroad, then on my behalf POA (Power Of Attorney) will work out and 3. Do I need to share the details of my working location with my wife (Is it mandatory to show her the offer letter)? I shall be thankful to you if you can kindly assist me about these points….

Best Regards, Rishi Kapur Reply

47 Rishi May 14, 2010 at 10:25 am

40.

Hi, Greetings….. I have filed an application there in the high court for seeking permissin to travel abroad for doing the job. But, I have some confusion, please clarify the same 1. Whether High court will send a notice to my wife for her presence on the day of hearing of my application ?( I want to ask that whether to get permission to go overseas my wife’s permission is necessary?) 2. Once I will for abroad, then on my behalf POA (Power Of Attorney) will work out and 3. Do I need to share the details of my working location with my wife (Is it mandatory to show her the offer letter)? I shall be thankful to you if you can kindly assist me about these points…. Best Regards, Rishi Kapur Reply

48 Rishi May 14, 2010 at 10:28 am

41.

Hi, I have another question – I had filed a divorce petition against my wife under section 13(i-q) and yesterday during reconcillation session, she had given her decision to the judge that she is not ready to stay with me and wants a divorce. Now, what will be the next move from the judge’s end. I have filed a divorce petition in Faridabad court as i am living in Faridabad (Haryana) and she is putting up in New Delhi. I had filed the petition on the grounds of cruelty (sexual Harrasment by my wife with me). Please advice. Thanks & Regards, Rishi Kapur Reply

49 Ravi July 5, 2010 at 8:36 pm

42.

Sir, My family(Myself Father and Mother ) were arrested on May 5 2010 ba sed on 498A false petition filed by my wife and we are in bail now. During the 498A case the police people did counselling and she demanded 10 Lakhs security deposit on her to withdraw the case , but we did not agree to that condition and got arrested and we are in bail now, she now again filed DV act 2005 case on me.please guide me what should i do now to rescue myself and my Family from this continuous false petitions filled by her. Reply

50 n. sridhar reddy August 14, 2010 at 5:16 pm

○

hello sir just do one thing go for qush for ur mother and father in the higer court while filing the qush in 498a same time you file qush in your d.v case also but this you will get some realf may b that ur mother and father will taken out from the cases Reply

51 ravi shukla July 6, 2010 at 11:23 am

43.

Dear sir, my name is ravi shukla i m from kolkata, my wife complaint against of me with complaint letter i will try to sale her and her daughter at place of bihar and she is not living with me last 1 and half month.plz help me and advise to me.what i do now…..this is the totaly false…. Reply

44.

July 26, 2010 at 2:36 pm 52 chamnjit kaur

I own a joint property with my 4 brothers at chandigarh. the partition is duly registered in equal ratio of 20%.My husband who is in service was transfered to Chandigarh in July 2008 and since then we have been staying in our chandigarh with the brothers very often while retaining o ur earlier house at Ludhiana in Punjab.The house was was occupied earlier by my 3 brothers,now one of the brothers with whom we(I & my husband)were staying has started harassing me fearing that I may stake a claim to my share in the property,I have reduced staying at my house fearing violence from there end and my husband also prefers to reach back to Ludhiana where we also have our house,after working at Chandigarh which is his workplace. Can I seek protection under the Domestic Violence Act.2005

Regards Babber Reply

53 rajit October 1, 2010 at 11:09 am

45.

Hello, My sister in law is threatning all of us (my aged pa rent, my brother and my wife) in the family that she will file a case against us on domestic violence act. What is your advice as to how we can handle this. regards rajit Reply

54 krishankmittal October 1, 2010 at 11:36 am

46.

Make recording of her misbehavear by spy cemara without telling anybody everyday. Reply

55 Roshan Saini October 8, 2010 at 4:48 pm

47.

@ Ranjit Let her file the case, dont worry, its a civil nature type case, no one needs to appear personally. Lawyer can appear on behalf of respondents In any case, the court gives U chance of hearing and then wud proceed thanx roshan saini advocate 9312210067 Reply

48.

56 Roshan Saini October 8, 2010 at 4:51 pm @ Camanjit Kaur Sorry chamanjit DVA is not your remedy, Approach civil court for suit for partition and permanent injunction

Thanx Roshan Saini Advocate 9312210067 [email protected] Reply

57 k hazra December 14, 2010 at 4:51 am

49.

wheather d.v. cases would continue with g.r. or c.r. case analogasly Reply


50.

wheather the trial of p.w.d.v. case would be go on with c.r. or g.r. cases analogasly.so.request you explain with court rulling Reply


51.

wheather trial of pwdv case would go on along with c.r or g. r. cases analogasly.please send court rulling. Reply

60 SHREE December 31, 2010 at 8:20 pm

52.

GR8 WK Reply

53.

61 desai swati January 15, 2011 at 9:25 am sir, my husband, brother in law & sister in law had inherited 3 rented(paghdi) properties, one residential & 2 commercial properties after the demise of my father in law in november 2008.My mother in law passsed away in 2004. In the residential property my brother in law with his wife was residing at the time of the demise of my father in law due to space crunch we were residing somewhere else. we were residing in the said flat till the death of my mother in law i.e till 2004and the flat was in her name.Of the 2 commercial properties the bigger one admeasuring 340sq.feet my brother in law was carrying

business with my father in law. In the other co mmercial property my husband is carrying business independantly since last 20years.A mutual family agreement deed was drawn and it was decided to sell of all the 3 properties and the sale proceeds be equally devided amongst the 3 siblings equally in August 2009 . In October 2009 the residential property was sold and the proceedings were equally devided amongst the 3 siblings. In May 2010 my brother in law’s wife filed domestic violence case against my husband, me, my mother and my sister in law. She has falsely alleged that after my father in law’s demise we stayed with them for 12 days and mentally and physically tortured her, her husband and her children and made the family agreement forcefully and was made to sell the flat forcefully. Now she is asking compensation of 15 lacs from all four of us and also asking interim relief. THearing shall start most probably from next month.Please guide me. thanks swati Reply

62 Ranjitha February 2, 2011 at 2:15 pm

54.

i have an urgent queryis a case filed under the protection of women against domestic violence act 2005 a civit case or a criminal case? does the husband have to personally appear in court? everytime there is a hearing? what are the counter cases that the husband and his family can do to the wife and her family? Pls let me know whatever you have heard of so that i can take some pre-emptive action as I have filed a domestic violence case against my husband but fear that they will only do counter cases on me to harass me further. Thanks, Ranjitha Reply

55.

63 Carlisle Collins February 5, 2011 at 4:38 pm ILLEGAL ‘LAWS’ – Food For Thought: Our ‘learned’ legislators responsible for the recent, ‘politically correct’ flurry of gender biased laws should take a good look at the UNITED NATIONS STANDARDS AND NORMS IN CRIME PREVENTION AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE particularly at the definition of “Victims of Crime”. See Link http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/justice-and-prison-reform/compendium.html “1. “Victims” means persons who, individually or collectively, have suffered harm, including physical or mental injury, emotional suffering, economic loss or substantial impairment of their fundamental rights, through acts or omissions that are in violation of criminal laws operative within Member States, including those laws proscribing criminal abuse of power. 2. A person may be considered a victim, under this Declaration, regardless of whether the

perpetrator is identified, apprehended, prosecuted or c onvicted and regardless of the familial relationship between the perpetrator and the victim. The term “victim” also includes, where appropriate, the immediate family or depend ents of the direct victim and persons who have suffered harm in intervening to assist victims in distress or to prevent victimization. 3. The provisions contained herein SHALL BE APPLICABLE TO ALL, WITHOUT DISTINCTION OF ANY KIND, SUCH AS RACE, COLOR, SEX, AGE, LANGUAGE, RELIGION, NATIONALITY, POLITICAL OR OTHER OPINION, CULTURAL BELIEFS OR PRACTICES, PROPERTY, BIRTH OR FAMILY STATUS, ETHNIC OR SOCIAL ORIGIN, AND DISABILITY.” (Emphasis, mine). So, are discriminatory ‘laws’ such as our DV scams, 498a ch arades, etc., indeed legal??? Reply

64 politepolite February 9, 2011 at 2:57 pm

56.

I am married since past 2+ yrs. In Oct 2010, my wife delivered a baby girl. Since marriage I am facing ego issues, differences of o pinions from my wife, but I have always ignored it as I wanted to save my marriage. But now my wife has left my home, saying that she is not well. She did hava a problem of VERTIGO. This happened 20+ days back. 2 days ago her dad called my dad & told hims that my wife will not return home, means she will not return to my home. There were no reasons given, nor was an attempt made to clarify/sort out issues. Just the final verdict fro her father. I am aware of the ‘The Protection Of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005′. I want advise as to how can I save myself & my family from any consequences, if she tries to take undue advantage of DV Act. Should I go and inform my local police about this or file a safety application against my wife using DV Act. Kindly guide. Thanks Polite-polite. Navi Mumbai. Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply Top of Form

Your email address will not be published. Requ ired fields are marked * Name * Email * Website

Comment You may use these HTML tags and attributes:
href="" title="">
Post Comment 1069 0 1298708452 Notify me of follow-up comments via email. Notify me of site updates comment-form-te f3183cd88b Bottom of Form « Justice Kailash Gambhir (Delhi HC) Guidelines On 498A Cases Justice R Regupathi (Chennai HC) Ends The Abuse Of 498A » Visitors Since Mar/14/07 • 926,730 Latest Posts • An Overview Of The American Criminal Justice System • CrPC Amendments Are In Effect • Delhi HC Directive To Upload FIRs • SC On Bail – Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs State O f Maharashtra • Dismissal From Service Apt Punishment For Corruption: SC Cluster Map Click The Links Below For: The Judgments Of Justice Shiv Narain Dhingra, Delhi HC The 498A Survival Kit Judgments To Fight DV Act Delhi Police: No 498A Arrests Without DCP's Permission Hyderabad Police: No 498A Arrests Without DCP's Permission The Final Report Of Film Actor Prashanth's 498A Case SC /HC Judgments On Divorce/498A/DNA Tests/Bail/DV News/Articles/Judgments On Child Custody And Parental Abduction Top of Form search go Bottom of Form RSS Feed: IPC 498A • An Overview Of The American Criminal Justice System • CrPC Amendments Are In Effect • Delhi HC Directive To Upload FIRs • SC On Bail – Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs State O f Maharashtra • Dismissal From Service Apt Punishment For Corruption: SC Live Traffic Archives Top Clicks • ipc498a.files.wordpress.c… • indiandivorce.blogspot.co… • ipc498a.files.wordpress.c… • ipc498a.files.wordpress.c… • ipc498a.files.wordpress.c… • ipc498a.files.wordpress.c… • ipc498a.files.wordpress.c… • ipc498a.files.wordpress.c… • ipc498a.files.wordpress.c… • ipc498a.files.wordpress.c… Recent Comments Amit Singhal on SC Judgement On AB (Full) nityanand jha on Magna Carta, Habeas Corpus And… Rajat on The Judgments Of Justice Shiv … Rajat on Justice Kailash Gambhir (Delhi… amrit on The Judgments Of Justice Shiv … amrit on The Judgments Of Justice Shiv … amrit on The Judgments Of Justice Shiv … amrit on The Judgments Of Justice Shiv … amrit on The Judgments Of Justice Shiv … raj on Grounds For Divorce Under Hind… Corruption In India • Association for Democratic Reforms • Campaign for Judicial Accountability • Central Information Commission • Committee To Protect Bloggers • Good Cop – Bad Cop • Indian Radical Feminist Propaganda • PENAL PROVISIONS PERTAINING TO BRIBERY AND CORRUPTION • Transparency International India Geopolitical • Intellibriefs Judgments • AP CID Judgments • Judis Open Archive • LEGALLIB • SC Judgment Search • World Legal Information Institute Links To Sister Sites • 498A GIRLS – Indias Most Wanted • 498A.Org • Angry Harry • Blogs Of SIF Members • Court Verdicts In Dailies • Days of Tempest – The Liam Magill Story • Gender Human Rights Society • Kharak Singhs Blog • Law and Other Things • Legal Terrorism in India • Life…is elsewhere, not here: Rizwanur Rehman • My Nation • Nita Blog • PariwarikSuraksha • Paternity Fraud in Australia • Protect Indian Family • Ramraj Env • Sandeep's Blog • Sangabalya • Save Indian Family Foundation • SIF Times • Vaghela SV Misc • Shekhar Kapoors’ Blog State Police Websites • AP CID Journals • Delhi Police • Gurgaon Police Some Interesting Stats On Arrests Of Women In 1930, the British govt arrested 17,000 women for their involvement in the Dandi Yatra (Salt March). During 1937 to 1947 (10 Years), they arrested 5,000 women involved in the freedom struggle. From 2004 to 2006, the govt of India arrested 90,000 women of all ages under 498A. On the average, 27,000 women per year are being arrested under this flawed law. These are stats from the NCRB. Propublica: Publc Interest Journalism • The Latest on Crackdowns in the Mideast and U.S. Responses • Hydrofracked? One Man’s Mystery Leads to a Backlash Against Natural Gas Drilling • Education Dept. Pledges to Overhaul Dysfunctional Disability Review Program • California County Opens Review Into Autopsies by Doctor With Checkered Past • Invoking ‘State Secrets’: Still the Status Quo? • Podcast: ProPublica Interns Roundtable • How I Passed My U.S. Citizenship Test: By Keeping the Right A nswers to Myself • As U.S. Rebuilt Ties With Libya, Human Rights Concerns Took a Back Seat • Cheat Sheet: What’s Really Going On With Wisconsin’s Budget • After Spending on Dubious Technology, U.S. Invokes State Secrets to Keep Details Hushed Copyright Notice: The content of this blog is copyrighted. You are required to obtain prior permission before locally hosting or reproducing online or in print, any or part of the content. You are welcome to directly link to the content from your site. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 Unported License. Disclaimer: The family of the writer was tortured by the Indian Police in an attempt to extort a huge amount of money by holding them hostage. They were held in custody for over a week. The police, in cahoots with the magistrate and the PP, could do this due to the ridiculous allegations made by his embittered ex-wife. She filed the 498A years after the last time he and his family had last seen her. This blog was started to combat the abuses perpetrated in the name of laws meant to protect women, such as S.498A of IPC. It is the corrupt officers of the Indian police force who are the main beneficiaries of this extortion racket. In a sense, this blog is a component in the larger battle against corruption in India. This is about raising the awareness of Indian citizens

IPC 498A ..

Recommend Documents