Dv
Mdali07
(Querist) 15 August 2018
This query is : Resolved
My wife has taken divorce
And after 4 years she files dv case
Is there any limition of time for dv case
Vijay Raj Mahajan
(Expert) 15 August 2018
DV complaint after 4 years of divorce can be challenged on the basis of time limit of more than one year for fillings complaint and non-existing of matrimonial relationships between the parties for more than 4 years.
Mdali07
(Querist) 15 August 2018
Sir is there any latesh judgement so I can produced in the court for limit of time
Kumar Doab
(Expert) 16 August 2018
Preferably discuss in person with a very able senior LOCAL counsel of unshakable repute and integrity specializing in Family/civil matters and well versed with latest citations, LOCAL applicable rules/laws/ … and having successful track record…. and worth his/her salt….. for a considered opinion to handle any situation…properly.
Check for such counsels at LOCAL Family/Civil Courts, HC, SC…
Kumar Doab
(Expert) 16 August 2018
If you are a well informd PIP and are well versed with court procedures and/or want to pick up points for your matter whose full details are not posted by you
then
Pick up relevant points and relate with your mater;
THE LIMITATION ACT, 1963;
PART II—OTHER APPLICATION
137. Any other application for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in this Division. Three years. When the right to apply accrues.
https://indiacode.nic.in/acts/9.%20Limitation%20Act,%201963.pdf
Central Government Act
The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005;2(f), 9,10, 12,28,32
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/542601/
The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Rules, 2006; 15(6)
http://imsd.defindia.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/PWDVA%20Domestic%20Violence%20Act%20Rules%202006.pdf
Central Government Act
Section 468 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973
468. Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation.
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1599077/
Kumar Doab
(Expert) 16 August 2018
GO thru various judgments from various perspectives to avoid error and pick up relvant points for matter at your hands..
e.g;
Gujarat High Court
Yogesh vs Jayshree Yogesh Motiramani on 24 September, 2013
Bench: S.R.Brahmbhatt
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/51256682/
Learned advocate Shri Shah appearing for petitioners confined his submission in respect of discharge qua petitioner nos. 2 and 3 only. Shri Shah submitted that provisions of D.V. Act read closely would indicate that the stale and time barred claim or alleged claim are not to be revived on the ground of advent of the D.V. Act or else it would work as tremendous hardship and consternation to the in-laws and members of the family.
Learned advocate appearing for respondents invited this Court s attention to the provisions of D.V. Act and contended that the D.V. Act clearly provides for various measures available for registering the grievances of the women and the same cannot be said to be restricted on account of any technical objection like limitation. The clear stand is taken that the concept of time barred proceedings is not found in the scheme of D.V. Act.
Against the aforesaid backdrop of indisputable aspect in the matter, the Court is to examine rival contentions of learned advocates for the parties.
(I) The Court proposes to examine the first contention qua challenge to the order of discharge and quashment of the proceedings under the D.V. Act on account of the grounds mentioned in the memo of petition, which indicates the ground of limitation as pleaded. The Court is of the view that looking to the provisions of D.V. Act and decisions cited at bar, the ground assumes consideration only in light of the pleadings and prayers made in the application. It would be therefore necessary for the Court to closely examine the application under the D.V. Act. The application under D.V. Act indicates that the respondent no. 1 has invoked the provisions of Sections 18, 19, 20, 21 and 22 of the D.V. Act, meaning thereby, the relief is sought qua protection orders under Section 18, residence orders i.e. alternative accommodation or rent in lieu thereof under Section 19, monetary reliefs under Section 20, compensation orders under Section 21, compensation orders under Section 22, in short, almost all the reliefs that could be legitimately asked for, has been asked and there is also reference of Stridhan and apprehension qua the same.
The Court is of the view that as it is reiterated hereinabove, the prayers as well as allegations and averments made in the application and invocation of aforesaid sections and prayers made thereunder, would persuade this Court to hold that violence, which is though basically subject matter of evidence, prima-facie calls for examination and therefore, the finding recorded by the trial Court is correct and is not required any interference. Of course, this being an observation which may not ultimately influence the final outcome of the matter, which is to be decided after giving full opportunity to both the sides. Having concluded that there is no requirement or petitioners are not required to be exempted from discharge on account of discharge application are not to be said to be not wrongly rejected.
Kumar Doab
(Expert) 16 August 2018
And;
Bombay High Court
Shri. Maroti vs Sau. Gangubai on 9 August, 2011
Bench: A.P. Bhangale
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1194540/
In other words, if there is a Domestic Incident Report that is received by the Magistrate either from the Protection Officer or from the Service Provider then only it is obligatory for the Magistrate to take note of the same before passing final order of the application made by the aggrieved person.
Delhi District Court
Pooja Anand vs Sandeep Anand on 30 July, 2015
Author: Sh. Sanjeev Jain
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/66476855/
c) Ld. MM committed an error by not recognizing para 4 (1) of the "statement of objections and reasons" of D.V Act which clearly states that " it covers those women who are or have been in relationship with the abuser where both parties have lived together". Thereby implying that person who have been in domestic relationship in past are covered under the Act.
d) Ld. Counsel argued that statement of "objections and reasons" of D.V Act clearly provides that remedy under D.V Act is civil remedy and offence u/s 31 of D.V Act comes in picture only when there is violation of "protection order" passed by the court u/s 18 of D.V Act. Ld. Counsel submitted that Ld. MM misconstrued the provisions while observing that petition was filed after gap of about three years. Section 468 Cr.PC which deals with the "limitation period" pertaining to criminal trials comes in picture only when cognizance is taken by the court u/s 31 of the D.V Act and that situation may be only in case of violation of "protection order" passed u/s 18 of D.V Act. For filing of application, no limitation period has been provided under D.V Act and therefore, Ld. MM committed error in observing that applicant has filed petition after considerable period and therefore, she has not come to the court with clean hands.
Probbaly the counsel of OP has prompted the court upon Living Together, living separately,….DV is continuing offense..
Hope you were not in touch with your spouse…after divorce.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 53
Case :- APPLICATION U/S 482 No. - 8788 of 2015
Applicant :- Vishal Santosh Kumar Garg And 2 Others
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- A.M. Tripathi
Counsel for Opposite Party :- Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Bharat Bhushan,J.
Kumar Doab
(Expert) 16 August 2018
Then carefully go thru and relate with your matter and assist the court to arrive at conclusion that limitation is 1Y in matter posted by you ;
Supreme Court of India
Inderjit Singh Grewal vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 23 August, 2011
Author: . B Chauhan
Bench: P. Sathasivam, B.S. Chauhan
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1337239/
3. This criminal appeal arises from the judgment and final order dated 9.8.2010 in Criminal Misc. No. M-29339 of 2009 (O&M) passed by the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh, by which the High Court has dismissed the application filed by the appellant under Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter called as `Cr.P.C.') for quashing the complaint No. 87/02/09 dated 12.6.2009 filed by respondent no. 2 under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter called the `Act 2005').
4….
C. Respondent no. 2 filed a complaint before Senior Superintendent of Police, Ludhiana against the appellant on 4.5.2009 under the provisions of the Act 2005 alleging that the decree of divorce obtained by them was a sham transaction. Even after getting divorce, both of them had been living together as husband and wife. She was forced to leave the matrimonial home. Thus, she prayed for justice. The said complaint was sent to SP, City-I, Ludhiana for conducting inquiry.
The said SP, City-I conducted the full-fledged inquiry and submitted the report on 4.5.2009 to the effect that the parties had been living
separately after divorce and, no case was made out against the present appellant. However, he suggested to seek legal opinion in the matter.
D. Accordingly, legal opinion dated 2.6.2009 was sought, wherein it was opined that the parties had obtained the divorce decree by mutual consent and the allegations made by respondent no. 2 against the appellant were false and baseless and the purpose of filing the complaint was only to harass the appellant.
25. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that permitting the Magistrate to proceed further with the complaint under the provisions of the Act 2005 is not compatible and in consonance with the decree of divorce which still subsists and thus, the process amounts to abuse of the process of the court. Undoubtedly, for quashing a complaint, the court has to take its contents on its face value and in case the same discloses an offence, the court generally does not interfere with the same. However, in the backdrop of the factual matrix of this case, permitting the court to proceed with the complaint would be travesty of justice. Thus, interest of justice warrants quashing of the same.
Also;
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 160 OF 2011 Sejal Dharmesh Ved .. Applicant vs. The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. Amit S. Dhutia i/b Niranjan Mundargi for the Applicant. Mrs. A. A. Mane, APP for Respondent No.1State. CORAM : MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J. DATE : 7th MARCH, 2013.
https://jg.daman4men.in/doc/2013-03-07___HC-of-MAHARASTRA___Cri.-Application-No-160______J.-Roshan-Dalvi.pdf
1. The applicant wife has challenged the order of the Court of Sessions at Greater Bombay dated 27.10.2010 holding that her application under the Prevention of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (D.V Act) is not maintainable because she was not in any domestic relationship.
4. The learned Judge has considered that under these circumstances, she having come to India in February, 2009 and having filed this application in January, 2010, there was no domestic relationship between the parties. The learned Judge has considered the definition of domestic relationship. Ofcourse, that relationship is defined to be one of which the party then lived and had earlier lived. That would be during the subsistence of the union between them. The application under the D. V. Act could be filed, when the marriage union subsisted. That having came to an an end and long after the physical relationship came to be an end, she having returned to India, she cannot be taken to be living in any domestic relationship in India.
5. A wife who lived in a domestic relationship earlier, but which ceases only because of any domestic violence can certainly file an application for such domestic violence that took place whilst she lived in that relationship. Such application is required to be filed within a reasonable time to show that relationship would give her the cause of action to sue under the D.V. Act for the reliefs under the Act. 6. A wife who has returned from the USA and consequently from the domestic relationship and lived in India for one year cannot file an application with regard to that relationship after such time. Such wife cannot be taken to be in any domestic relationship. The order of the learned Judge is, therefore, correct. The writ petition is completely devoid of merits and accordinglydismissed.
Kumar Doab
(Expert) 16 August 2018
Approach a very able senior LOCAL counsel of unshakable repute and integrity as already posted.
If you are properly informed PIP you may think upon if you can handle without a very able counsel as already posted above and without committing errors and appear in person and convince the Presiding Officer/Court.
Preferably proveed further under advice of a very able counsel as already posted above.
Mdali07
(Querist) 20 August 2018
Sir I my case
She himself ask the divorce
And there is no child
And in divorce there is given written by both party
that both the party will never file case to each other and both of them are free to live
After divorce there is no communication
With each other
After 4 years she file dv act
And asking for interim allowance
Sir
What is the limit to file dv after divorce ?
Can she asked for interim allowance ?
After given in written that's no onces will files case
