
Paradox of the Protection Order
by Vilasini Balasubramanian*
by Vilasini Balasubramanian*
“Residence order is an urgent relief to protect a woman from her taking shelter on road. Therefore, passing of an interim order of the nature as defined under Section 19 of the Act is well within the jurisdiction of a Magistrate.”
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.
The Court affirms the exclusive jurisdiction of Magistrates in adjudicating applications under Section 12 of the Act, thereby ensuring clarity and coherence in the administration of justice.
Bombay High Court: In a case where simultaneous maintenance claims were under different enactments, S.G. Mehare, J., held that mere
The Court held that application filed by minor under Section 12 of Domestic Violence Act cannot be dismissed on the grounds of maintainability especially when she had attained majority before the date of final order.
Delhi High Court: Subramonium Prasad, J., refused to grant relief to the petitioner against orders of the lower court restraining him from
Delhi High Court: Mukta Gupta, J., while addressing a matrimonial matter, highlighted the scope of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence
Madras High Court: K. Murali Shankar, J., addressed the issue with regard to payment of maintenance, whether from the date of application
Bombay High Court: Mangesh S. Patil, J., dismissed a criminal revision application filed against the order of the trial court whereby the application
Delhi High Court: Sanjeev Sachdeva, J., reiterated that proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and under Section 125
Delhi High Court: Sanjeev Sachdeva, J., while dismissing a criminal revision petition, held that the magistrate has a power to pass an order
Bombay High Court at Goa: C.V. Bhadang, J., allowed a petition filed by the husband and quashed trial court’s order whereby it had
Delhi High Court: A Division Bench comprising of Vipin Sanghi and P.S. Teji, JJ. dismissed the petition filed by the wife against
Bombay High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Bharati H. Dangre, J., has held that the Muslim Personal Law can in
Bombay High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Anuja Prabhudessai, J., decided a writ petition, wherein it was held that Section
Bombay High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Dr. Shalini Phansalkar-Joshi, J. heard a case involving counter-petitions filed by both the
Karnataka High Court: While passing the order in a criminal revision petition, a Single Judge Bench comprising of Rathnakala, J. held that