Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
In the present case, the allegation against the respondent (‘man’) was of domestic violence, while he lived in a shared household with the petitioner (‘woman’) for almost seven years in a domestic relationship, if not as a married couple but at least as a couple in the nature of marriage.
When the Court requested the advocate to remove her face cover, she asserted that a woman advocate can appear with her face covered and claimed the same as her fundamental right.
As per the provisions of Muslim law and the DV Act, the Court opined that the present petitioner being father-in-law of respondent, cannot be compelled to give maintenance to the respondent.
The Court found the order of the Appellate Court was completely bereft of any findings or reasoning for reducing the maintenance amount, and that the Appellate Court could not have reduced the amount of maintenance once having rejected the Application for stay.
On perusal of the definition of “shared household” and the provisions of Sections 17 and 19 of Domestic Violence Act states that to show “shared household” the parties must show the place where they have lived together in the past.
The Court pin-pointed the huge difference in income of the husband and wife, and that there was no documentary evidence to support the wife’s claims of being indebted.
In a clinical dissection of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the Karnataka High Court stated that the victims’ grievances such as maintenance or shelter etc., must be addressed with immediacy, which is why the legislation has mandated a specific time frame.
Madras High Court: The full bench of P.N. Prakash, Teekaa Raman and A.D Jagadish Chandira, JJ. held that the jurisdiction
Madras High Court: In 32 cases regarding domestic violence filed under Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC), the full bench
Delhi High Court: Asha Menon, J., observed that, the right to claim maintenance under the Domestic Violence Act and those under Section
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi: In a matter regarding providing maintenance to wife and children, Ramesh Kumar-1, Principal District & Sessions Judge, expressed that
Supreme Court: Refusing to interfere with the Delhi High Court verdict, the bench of MR Shah and BV Nagarathna, JJ has held
Delhi High Court: Explaining the significance of ‘shared household’ Asha Menon, J., explained that where a residence is clearly a shared household,
LXIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, Bengaluru: B. Venkatesha, LXIII Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge, dismissed an appeal filed under Section
Delhi High Court: While stating the well-settled law that even when an appellate Court affirms the order of the Court below, it
Bombay High Court: Manish Pitale, J., expressed while addressing the present application that, “Second marriage cannot come within the definition of domestic
Delhi High Court: Subramonium Prasad, J., refused to grant relief to the petitioner against orders of the lower court restraining him from
Madras High Court: S.M. Subramaniam, J., held that Protraction and prolongation of litigations affecting women can never be encouraged by the Courts.
Karnataka High Court: Jyoti Mulmani J., allowed the revision petition on grounds of failure to ascertain and understand the material propositions involved
Shubhodip Chakraborty, Editorial Assistant has put this story together