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 screwed. What makes this law so pernicious is that 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 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:
To understand this principle, read this article:
-
Delhi Court: DV Act Has No Retrospective Effect – Ashma Vs Afsar – CC No.311/8- Oct 2008
- Justice Dhingra Explains The Meaning Of Shared Household Defined In The DV Act
- In ( 2008 ) DMC 1, delivered by the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court held that Complaint for this offence can only be filed against adult male person and further held in 3( C ) that as provided by sec 2(q)of the act, such application u/s 12 of the act 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-act-2007.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 of 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 in-laws. 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 complaint, asking a number of relief s, including right to residence. “The woman failed to satisfy this court that her husband 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
________________________________________
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 Andhra Pradesh High Court as early as possible.
Also see: http://bok498a.blogspot.com/2008/08/retrospective-clause-in-dv-strategy.html
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
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
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
the more time it takes, the more u r frustrating them….so chill
The more it takes time, the more u tire them, the more they will get frustrated
chill…
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 offences 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.
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. 9848397489
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
kindly loaded the judgement copy of case no. crl.p 3714/2007 delivered by andhra pradesh highcourt.
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
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.2361, 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 Mahaboobnagar, 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 abuse 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
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.
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 proffs 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 and 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 necessary 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, 2008
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 respondent 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 18, 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. Hence, 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.
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
More Judgments can be found here
http://mynation.net/docs/
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”
Is there any case law on whether DV ACt applies to people living outside India
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.
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!