Digest Domestic Violence Act 2005

image_printPrint

BULLET 2THE PROTECTION OF WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT 2005 [BARE ACT]

Law


1. Kunapareddy @Nookala shanka balaji vs Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari & Anr (SC)

Amendment in the complaint was allowed: cognizance not taken, did not change the original nature and summons were yet to be ordered to be issued.

2. Hiralal P. Harsora & Ors. vs Kusum Narotamdas Harsora & Ors. (SC)

Section 2(q) ‘adult male’ struck off before the word person.

3. Krishna Bhatacharjee vs Sarathi Choudhury And Anr (SC)

Retention of Stridhan by husband or any of his family members is a continuing offence. Claim not barred by the limitation that she should have claimed it prior to judicial separation

4. Shalu Ojha versus Prashant Ojha (SC)

Whether the Sessions Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Section 29 of the Act has any power to pass interim orders staying the execution of the order appealed before it is a mater to be examined in an appropriate case. No express grant of power conferred on the Sessions Court while such power is expressly conferred on the Magistrate under Section 23.

5. Prakash N.D.Saha versus Sou. Meena Prakash D Saha (SC)

S.20,21 Unsuccessful divorce proceedings cannot adversely affect maintainability of application fled under Act.

6. Saraswathy versus Babu (SC)

Compensation and damages for injuries : pay compensation and damages to the extent of Rs. 5,00,000 in favour of the wife.

7. Indra Sarma versus V.K.V. Sarma (SC)

The Supreme Court para 55 has laid down the tests for judging a live in relationship following which the expression “ In the nature of marriage” under section 2 (f) of D.V. Act; holding that all live in relationships are not in the nature of marriage and the court shall come to an informed decision on the basis of material available, before passing an order in such cases.

8. V.D.Bhanot versus Savita Bhanot (SC)

Section 2(s) 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.

9. Inderjit Singh Grewal versus State of Punjab & Anr (SC)

Case u/s 12 DV Act after obtaining a divorce by mutual consent and later challenging the same.

10. D.Velusamy versus D.Patachaiammal (SC)

Section 2(f) domestic relationship (CONCUBINE)

11. Japani Sahoo versus Chandra Shekhar Mohanty (SC) 

Provision of limitation in section 468 Cr.P.C. crucial date for computing limitation is not taking of cognizance by the magistrate but the fling of the complaint or initiation of proceedings

12. S.R. Batra & Anr versus Smt. Taruna Batra (SC)

Shared House-Hold (section 2(s)) & Sections 17 and 19(1) ) of the aforesaid Act, The exclusive property of mother-in-law cannot be called a `shared household’

13. Chitranjan Pd. Singh versus State of Bihar (Patna High Court)

Court is not empowered to decide the possession or title of the shared household or indirectly allow relief of delivery of possession.

14. Rajesh Kumar Chaudhari versus State of U.P. & Anr (Allahabad High Court)

(On the point of limitation ) whether governed by provision of section 468 Cr.P.C.

15. Harbans Lal Malik versus Payal Malik (Delhi High Court)

The Delhi High Court held that to constitute a family and domestic relationship under D.V. Act. It is necessary that the persons who constitute domestic relationship must be living together in the same house under one head.
The parents can be included in the family of son only when they are dependent upon the son and/or all living along with son in the same house. In case where the shared household has been at USA, the court in India directed the Brother and Father of the husband living in India to pay Rs. 50 thousand to the complainant wife jointly and severally with the husband, is set aside.

16. Sagar Sudhakar Shengde versus Mrs.Naina Sagar Shengde & Ors (Bombay High Court)

Issuance of NBW against for execution of order of maintenance well within the special procedure u/s 28 (2) D.V. Act 2005 .

17. Kunjathiri versus State of Kerela (Kerala High Court)

No necessity that the woman should be related to the person commiting wrong through matrimony alone..A proceeding against relative of husband is perfectly maintainable without husband being in the party array and without relief being sought against him.



image_printPrint