Dv to filed within one year, recent judgement by indore hc?

@ Author,

1. The correct view is that in case of decree of divorce, the limitation to file proceedings is only a year Ref.: Inderjit Singh Grewal Vs. State of Punjab  [(2011) 12 SCC 588]. But reading down facts in your brief still the relationship of husband and wife is alive.

2. The Object of the D.V. Act, is to provide effective protection of the rights of women guaranteed under the Constitution who are victims of violence of any kind occurring within the family.

3. So, it is held in number of HC's decisions  that in case of "subsisting relationship" of husband and wife, there is no limitation. Meaning thereby that the complaint under the DV Act, can be filed at any time as the physical and mental harassment within the family is a continuing offence.

@TAJOBS....thanks for your reply, actually i was referring to this news post from the following website. however i could not find the specific judgement. 

The news is published by https://epaper.newstodaypost.com,

publication date is 19/09/2014,

judgement by shri hon jarat kumar jain,  indore high court

parties: kirti kolhe vs swapnil kolhi,

advocate: samir verma,

Well if MP HC's bench at Indore has said so then it has made preponderous S. 468 CrPC in view of the provisions of Sections 28 and 32 of the Act 2005 read with Rule 15 (6) of The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Rules, 2006 which make the provisions of Cr.P.C. applicable and stand fortified by the judgments of Apex court in Ref.: Japani Sahoo Vs.. Chandra Sekhar Mohanty [AIR 2007 SC 2762] and Noida Entrepreneurs Association Vs. Noida & Ors., [(2011) 6 SCC 508]..

Some months back I had the chance to interpret above Sections in this very Forum(s) which you may re-visit and draw your own discussion point accordingly.

Thus I cannot add more as various HC's interpret differently DV Act 'limitation (Mumbai HC says she cannot, Karnataka HC says she can and Delhi HC also says she can and Bench at Indore says based on your presented news reporting she can not and so on so forth are various interpretations given) and thus we will soon see a SLP being admitted in Apex court thy name 're-visit' LIMITATION.

[Last reply]

• I faced DV in recent times and am aware of all the judgements in this area. There are many and though they, in the eyes of half-baked advocates, appear to contradict each other, a careful reading shows that they are more or less consistent. That is important is to understand the facts of each judgement. Here is an example. Tajobsji says:  "The correct view is that in case of decree of divorce, the limitation to file proceedings is only a year." Wrong... wrong wrong. You need to understand the law and facts on which the judgement rests. After divorce you can continue to be in a domestic relationship and the one year time limit for filing will not apply. Or you may not be divorced and yet not be in a domestic relationship with your wife for more than a year and the limitation will apply. 
•  
• Fighting back's question is therefore very relevant. The judgement is important to know the facts to which it has been applied. When arguing, one must not only quote the final conclusion of the judgement cited but also the facts of the case.  

thanks jimmy for you comments on my article. since such judgements, which are very rare to find to support harrassed males, must be studied in great detail for strong defence of innocent men, i am trying to collate such judgements, if you come across this indore court judgement then please post here, as i am not able to find it on the website of the MP high court

Were you able to find the case number? I am also unable to find on MP high court website

Thanks

the judgement is not traceable by jarat kumar jain indore high court madhya pradesh in swapnil kohli verses kirti kohli date of decision is 26/08/2014. please supply

I posted judgement in a separate thread. please check. 

@jeevan.........can you please provide the link to your thread where you have posted this judgement..the judgemnet is no where to be seen posted by you..................

@jeevan...you have not posted this judgement in any of your threads.....please dont fool other members.....

hello mr jeevan........ share the judgement again. if you have posted it? where have you posted this particular judgement?

Sorry, I uploaded and posted the link here which is expired now, please see some discussion at the bottom of the page. the jundgement is not very useful for fighting based on timeline

https://www.498a.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=56&t=14227

@Sandeep, your choice of words are unfortunate. 

@jeevan.......can you please comment as to why the judgement is not useful..i read the article in the newspaper..i think it is useful..the discussion link you have given is not opening..if you have read the link then can you please comment on it.....thanks

Maxx, copied from there, look forward to more comments from learned members here