Kamatchi Vs. Lakshmi Narayanan-13/04/2022

The provisions of the Act contemplate filing of an application under Section 12 to initiate the proceedings before the concerned Magistrate. After hearing both sides and after taking into account the material on record, the Magistrate may pass an appropriate order under Section 12 of the Act. It is only the breach of such order which constitutes an offence as is clear from Section 31 of the Act.

Smt Tanusree Mandal (Hembrom) vs Sree Sujay Hembrom and Ors – 02/04/2022

It is also to be stated that S-14 of the Act provides for counselling at any stage and the Ld. Court below can direct any of the parties either singly or jointly, to undergo counselling with any member of a service provider who possess such qualifications and experience in counselling as may be prescribed. There is nothing on record that the Ld. Court below has taken any steps adhering to the said section of the Act when the parties filed a joint compromise petition.

SARASWATHY Vs BABU-25/11/2013

The Appellant-wife having being harassed since 2000 is entitled for protection orders and residence orders u/s 18 and 19 of the PWD, Act, 2005 along with the maintenance as allowed by the Trial Court u/s 20(d) of the PWD, Act, 2005. Apart from these reliefs, she is also entitled for compensation and damages for the injuries, including mental torture and emotional distress, caused by the acts of domestic violence committed by the Respondent-husband.

ADIL AND ORS Vs STATE AND ANR-20/09/2010

It must be kept in mind that resort of Domestic Violence Act cannot be done to enforce property rights. For enforcement of property rights, the parties are supposed to approach civil court. Resort to Domestic Violence Act can be done only where there is urgent requirement of wife to be maintained and provided residence when because of domestic violence, she had been rendered homeless and she had lost source of maintenance. Domestic Violence Act is not meant to enforce the legal rights of property, neither an interim order can be passed without first prima facie coming to conclusion that a domestic relationship existed between the parties and the applicant was an aggrieved person within the meaning of Section 2(a) of the Domestic Violence Act.

ALOY KUMAR CHANDA AND ORS Vs THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS-03/02/2016

The concept of "continuing offence" gets attracted from the date of deprivation of stridhan, for neither the husband nor any other family members can have any right over the stridhan and they remain the custodians... Regard being had to the said concept of ''continuing offence" and the demands made, we are disposed to think that the application was not barred by limitation and the courts below as well as the High Court had fallen into a grave error by dismissing the application being barred by limitation.

SOU. SANDHYA MANOJ WANKHADE Vs. MANOJ BHIMRAO WANKHADE AND ORS-31/01/2011

Prevention of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - Section 2(q) - Ambit - Legislature never intended to exclude female relatives of husband or male partner from ambit of complaint that can be made under provisions of Domestic Violence Act, 2005 - No restrictive meaning has been given to expression "relative", nor has said expression been specifically defined in Domestic Violence Act, 2005, to make it specific to males only

DHANANJAY RAMKRISHNA GAIKWAD AND ORS Vs. SUNANDA DHANANJAY GAIKWAD AND ORS-18/01/2016

Protection of Woman from Domestic Violence Act, 2005—Section 18—Domestic violence—Protection order—Locus standi to maintain appeal—Till the time marital tie subsists and the party, at any point of time, had lived together, application or proceedings under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act can survive and are very much maintainable so as to grant necessary relief.

Section 165 of Evidence Act: Judge’s power to put questions or order production

The Judge may, in order to discover or to obtain proper proof of relevant facts, ask any question he pleases, in any form, at any time, of any witness, or of the parties, about any fact relevant or irrelevant; and may order the production of any document or thing; and neither the parties nor their agents shall be entitled to make any objection to any such question or order, nor, without the leave of the Court

Shyamlal Devda and Others Vs. Parimala-22/1/2020

Section 18 of the Domestic Violence Act relates to protection order. In terms of Section 18 of the Act, intention of the legislature is to provide more protection to woman. Section 20 of the Act empowers the court to order for monetary relief to the "aggrieved party". When acts of domestic violence is alleged, before issuing notice, the court has to be prima facie satisfied that there have been instances of domestic violence.

EVIDENCE CANNOT BE TAKEN ON AFFIDAVIT IN MAINTENANCE PROCEEDING OR UNDER DV ACT-MP HIGH COURT

Before the Family Court, an application under Section 125, Cr.PC has been filed by the respondents for maintenance. In the said proceedings, the respondents filed their affidavit in evidence and petitioner has been directed to cross-examine on the affidavit. At this stage, petitioner raised an objection in writing that in the proceedings, evidence can not be taken on affidavit, but the respondent should be examined in the Court in the presence of petitioner or his Counsel. Family Court relying on Section 10(3) of the Family Court Act found that the Family Court is having jurisdiction to adopt its own procedure for recording evidence and relying on provisions of Code of Civil Procedure held that the affidavit can be received in evidence and rejected the application of the petitioner. This order is under challenge in this petition.