offer
offer

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

A well said strategy to fight false 498a,DV and maintenanace cases

Page no : 2

Sundari (Sr.Executive)     25 July 2013

Great work men. Kudddos to you..

The modern generation of girls are too bad.. they mis use the law a lot.

collect some good articles on DV also and publish.. since 498a has become old fashioned, now all are giving case in DV.

Be your good work continue for the sufferer and Govt should also know how the real color of women.


(Guest)

great...


(Guest)

@ Sundari, Great to hear from you as "The modern generation of girls are too bad.. they mis use the law a lot"

 

Being a lady it's highly appreciated from you giving statement on this gender biased law and misued.

 

Thnaks & regards,

 

A sufferer......


(Guest)

@ Golden sward,

 

Thanks buddy !


(Guest)

 

THE PROTECTION OF MEN FROM WOMEN FROM DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ACT, 2005 NO. 43 OF 2005 [13th September, 2005.]

 

Chapter 1: An Act to provide for more effective protection of the rights of women guaranteed under the Constitution who are victims of violence of any kind occurring within the family and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto. BE it enacted by Parliament in the Fifty-sixth Year of the Republic of India.

 

2. What relief/orders wife can get under DV ACT

 

Wife can seek the following relief’s from the concerned court -
a) An order enjoining your abuser from threatening to commit or committing further acts of domestic violence or violence to any person in whom you may be interested;

 

b) An order prohibiting your abuser from harassing, annoying, telephoning, contacting or otherwise communicating with you, directly or indirectly.

 

c) An order removing your abuser from residence;

 

d) An order directing your abuser to stay away from your residence, school, place of employment, or any other specified place frequented by you and another family or household member;

 

e) An order prohibiting you abuser from using or possessing any firearm or any other weapon or dangerous substance as specified by the court.

 

f) An order granting you possession of your personal effects and other necessary articles in the shared household and an order to put you again in the possession of the shared household;

 

g) An order granting you custody of your child or children;

 

h) An order denying your abuser visitation;

 

i) An order specifying arrangements for visitation, including requiring supervise visitation;

 

j) An order for interim monetary relief, including but not limited to payment of rent for the premises of the shared household, maintenance for you and your children, medical expenses and compensation for any other mental or physical injury caused to you by the abuser;

 

3. NFHS did study and RTI inspection of some of the magistrate orders. Our conclusion is magistrates’ are basically finding reason’s to hold husband guilty so that they can pass maintenance. Unless the husband is held guilty no order of relief can be passed against him. In one such order NFHS has found that the reason given by magistrate is “I find husband guilty of DV based on arguments, wife has produced a medical certificate of treatment and 498A is registered against husband.”  He however held that “FIL has not done any DV as a 65 years old person cannot do DV on 28 year old women”. So the important thing is to demolish all allegation of DV from her petition though it is very difficult to do so.

 

4. The main attraction for girls is to claim the Right to Residence (RTR) from Husband/Male partner. So make sure you do not own a house or flat in your name. Even though wife/female partner can claim RTR only against Husband/Male partner but nothing stops the wife/female partner from filing a petition under DV act and come and sit inside the house.

 

5. Another important point is wife/female partner can claim maintenance under the DV act. This is in addition to other maintenance ordered under CrPC 125 or HMA section 24. So in case your wife is granted maintenance under CrPC 125 or HMA section 24, then your lawyer has to forcefully argue to the court that basic need of the wife is taken care by other maintenance and hence there is no need of any additional maintenance.

 

6. Please note DV act cannot be filed against a female but if you are a victim of the DV act then make sure your mother files a DV case against your father-in-law/brother-in-law. This is a strategy which may not succeed but from the point of view of keeping pressure it is good.

 

7. Your wife/female partner can be provided with protection order from local SHO. So you should be in good relation with your local SHO else your wife/female partner can create enough trouble for you. E.g. she can simply walk to the SHO and file a complaint that you were following her or that you had threatened her in the court to withdraw cases etc.

 

8. Please remember that from various judgments of the various high courts, there is no clarity whether DV act is retrospective or not. Various HC’s have given contradictory judgments in this regard. Retrospective means even though DV act came into existence only in September 2006 but a husband/male partner can be booked for incidents which had occurred before DV act came into existence. But your lawyer must take this stand. The problem is even if the opposite party is able to show one incident after separation even then you can be booked.

 

9. Even though there is no mention of arrest in DV act but non-compliance of order by magistrate can lead to issuance of non-bailable-warrant. DV is neither purely civil nor criminal. There is a beautiful judgment in this regard from Chhattisgarh HC.

 

10. There was a case booked in Madya-Pradesh where even though divorce was granted in 2003 but wife restored to DV act in 2007 and that subsequently lead to non-bailable-warrant.

 

11. The basic difference between 498a and DV act is in 498a husband is liable for punishment but wife does not get any financial relief but in DV wife/female partner gets lots of relief but there is no punishment/arrest (unless husband violate court order). Another difference is 498a can be booked against husband or his relatives but DV can be booked only against male members of a family.

 

12. Another point to remember is that as per Supreme Court judgment in batra vs batra any relief to the wife cannot be granted to wife against the property of mother-in law. So it may be wise to transfer the immovable property to mother’s name but again as per Chennai HC order where husband transferred the property to wife but she captured it and HC termed it correct. So you must be very careful in this.

 

13. Please remember that under DV act Magistrate is having sweeping powers. So make sure not to keep much cash in the known bank accounts.

 

14. There is a recent Chennai high court judgment where even though the husband has transferred the property to the mothers name but high court did not like this and they passed the RTR in favor of wife. So I guess the safest way out is to sell the property and park the funds in investments which wife cannot track down.

 

15. The key to win DV case is demolish her evidence of violence. Normally the girls’ side will project that 498A is filed and hence violence has happened. The problem is 498A takes around 5-7 years to finish and DV runs very fast. So in the cross examination of wife all her allegations must be demolished wrt the violence.

 

16. Behavior in the court and how the judge observes you is very important in such cases as evidence in matrimonial cases always does not tell truth.

 

17. Try to give as many evidence as possible to build your cases. Even if lower court ignores your evidence then also you will have a chance in HC to argue. Remember getting a favorable order from lower court is very important as in HC mostly it is your luck.

 

18. Though your lawyer will discourage you from filing a lengthy affidavit but you need to make sure that her cruelty part is highlighted properly. Normally lawyers will suggest that don’t bring the cruelty as it is more relevant to the divorce case but that is not true. You need to bring every aspect of her cruelty as it will prove that you are the one who had undergone DV.

 

19. Attack DV in your affidavit saying the law is made on flaw and is against the principle of natural justice and against constitution of India article 15 which guarantees equality to each citizen. Though it will not help you directly but will convey the message to the judge that you might have undergone DV at the hands of your wife.

 

20. In your affidavit at the end you must put a paragraph mentioning how greedy women are misusing the laws made for the needy women. This will help creating awareness and help the larger cause.

 

21. Remember your lawyer will say just keep on denying all the allegations and finish the affidavit. That is wrong strategy. You cannot escape just by denying allegations. You need to bring out your story in proper way and convey to the magistrate that you are the one who had suffered at the hands of your cruel wife.

 

22. Remember your greedy wife is behind your money. She is least interested in saving the marriage or you. When she has filed a false case of DV against you means for all practical purpose marriage is dead. So you need to safeguard your finance part. There are innumerable judgments where it is ordered that educated; working women are not capable for maintenance.

 

23. Now the question is once your wife captures your house then how do you vacate her as she had captured just to harass you? She may not be even staying there.

 

24. Use 91 CrPC applications effectively to bring out true facts.

 

25. Use 340 CrPC applications to put them on the back foot as it deals with punishment for lying on oath.

 

26. Use RTI effectively to collect evidence.

 

27. Use TEP, DP3 etc effectively to push them to wall and to give them their own taste.

 

28. Talk to volunteers and attend weekly meeting regularly.

 

29. Never file an application in the court without reading the entire contents twice. Normally I never allow my lawyer to file application. I do all the paper work myself and enjoy it.

 

30. Remember there only two important things to decide DV Case. One is domestic relationship and another is domestic violence. In most of our cases domestic relationship is not disputed so only other thing to be decided is domestic violence.

 

31. You need to understand how the Magistrate/Session court decides the matter and how the HC/SC decides the matter.

 

32. Should you delay and drag the case or finish it as fast as possible.

 

33. Why it is dangerous
It is dangerous because it is retrospective in nature. i.e. even if any alleged domestic violence has occurred even before the implementation of this act even then this act can be used. It gives sweeping Ex-Parte relief to women even without ascertaining whether any kind of domestic violence has taken place. The wordings of the DV act are not very “happily worded” (observed by Honorable Supreme Court). So it is bound to be misused by ladies to take revenge. Magistrate can pass Ex-Parte order.

 

34. Use following page to get judgments related to DV:
https://498amisuse.wordpress.com/category/resource/domestic-violence/dv-judgements/
https://www.498a.org.in/rsrcs_ctnts_DV.html
35. Use following page to get misuse judgments related to DV:
https://498amisuse.wordpress.com/category/resource/domestic-violence/dv-misuse-judgements/
36. Use following page to get strategy related to DV:
https://www.498a.org.in/rsrcs_strtgy_DV.html
37. Use following page to get FAQ related to DV:
https://www.498a.org.in/rsrcs_faq_DV.html
• Remember it is not about to know DV Act but rather to fight it.
• Also point of discussion will be “How to get the house captured by DIL”?
• How to reduce maintenance?
• What is relevant to decide a DV Case?
• Strategy to Cross opposite party in DV Case.
• What constitutes Evidence in a DV Case?
• How to write Chief Affidavit?


(Guest)

Very nice collections here,realy inspiration for victims

 

gr8 job bro. Hats off to you

498A fighter (tutor)     27 July 2013

you did good work , it help a lot to get mentally strong,

i need the judgments , citation and decision which exactly match with the condition that " i won sec09 in which decision is that "  पति ने पत्नी को न तो शारीरिक रूप से प्रताड़ित किया है और ना ही मानसिक रूप से इसलिए पतिनी को आदेशित किया जाता है की वो पति के साथ जाकर दाम्पत्य संबंधो का निर्वाह करे, पत्नी के द्वारा दहेज़ का केस आफ्टर थॉट दुर्भावना पूर्वक मंशा से पेश किया गया है"

ये आर्डर सिविल कोर्ट का सेक०९  restitution of conjugal rithts में डिस्ट्रिक्ट जज ने दिया था  मै इसका उपयोग ४९८आ क्रिमिनल केस में करना चाहता इसके लिए मुझे judgments , citation and decision which exactly match with the condition की जरुरत है अगर आप के किसी के पास हो तो क्रिया जल्दी देने की कृपा करें  या मुझे उन लिनक्स के बारे में बतायें जहा ये उपलब्ध हो सकें मैंने काफी खोजा पर exact नहीं मिल पा रहे है.

मैं ऐसी औरतो को सबक सिखाने के लिए हमेशा प्रयत्न शील हु जो कानून का गलत उपयोग कर पति को परेशां प्रताड़ित करके पैसा ऐठ रही है. और ऐसो को सबक मिलना ही चाहिए/

1 Like

(Guest)

BOMBAY HIGH COURT (Aurangabad Bench) Before :- V.R. Kingaonkar, J. Criminal Revision Application No. 226 of 2002

 

NUTSHELL Wife left matrimonial home and claiming maintenance from husband - Wife not restoring conjugal rights despite order of court - Not entitled to maintenance.

 

Sanjay Sudhakar Bhosale Versus Khristina w/o Sanjay Bhosale dated 8.4.2008

For the Petitioner :- Mr. Gopal D. Kale, Advocate. For the Respondent

:- Mr. N.K. Choudhari, Advocate holding for Mr. R.N. Dhorde, Advocate.

 

Criminal Procedure Code, Section 125 - Wife left matrimonial home within five months of marriage and claiming maintenance - Maintenance refused - Evidence showed that wife left matrimonial home under burden of domestic chores and did not restore conjugal rights despite order of court - Contention of wife that she lodged a complaint with police regarding cruelty by husband -

 

She could not prove this fact - Wife's application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. is dismissed. 2003(4) RCR(Crl.) 189 : 2004(1) Apex Criminal 444 relied. [Paras 10 to 13] Case referred : Deb Narayan Halder v. Smt. Anushree Halder, 2003(4) RCR(Criminal) 189 : 2004(1) Apex Criminal 444 : 2003(3) B Cr C 286. JUDGMENT V.R. Kingaonkar, J. - By this revision petition, petitioner seeks immunity from liability to pay maintenance allowance as per Judgment rendered in Criminal Revision Petition No. 60 of 2000, by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shrirampur, to respondent.

He challenges the said Judgment reversing order of dismissal of the respondent's application for maintenance passed by learned Judicial Magistrate (First Class), Shrirampur. 2. It would be useful to first note the admitted facts. The spouses belong to Christian community. Their marriage was performed on 14.5.1998 in accordance with tenets of Christian religion. The petitioner is employed as Wardboy in Yerwada Mental Hospital, at Pune.

 

He resides in one of the Government quarters, out of nine such quarters, which are in one row, situated at back side of the mental hospital. He was a divorcee when he performed marriage with the respondent. She went to reside with him after the marriage. His parents and two brothers reside with him in the same residential quarter. The marriage was shortlived. The spouses are incompatible. 3. The respondent (wife) filed application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. for separate maintenance allowance. She asserted that for about six months, she was somehow treated alright in the matrimonial home.

 

Thereafter, the husband started mental and physical harassment to her at instigation of his parents and brothers. Her in-laws used to express dissatisfaction regarding gifts given in the marriage. They used to abuse her. The husband (petitioner) used to beat her in drunken condition. He used to make unlawful demand of gold locket weighing 15 gms., a T.V. set and a mixer, which she was asked to bring from the parents. Her parents attempted to convince and plead with her husband. Still, however, he and his relatives continued the unlawful demand, which her parents were unable to meet out. He used to suspect her fedility. She apprehended danger to her life in the matrimonial home. He mercilessly beaten up her on 21.2.1999 and drove her out of the matrimonial home. She lodged a complaint at the Police Station. She is unable to maintain herself.

 

The husband (petitioner) has got sufficient means to provide separate maintenance. Consequently, she demanded separate maintenance allowance at rate of Rs. 1,500/- (Rs. One thousand five hundred) from him. 4. By filing written statement (Exh.14), the husband (present petitioner) denied truth into all the material allegations made by the wife. He denied that she was being ill-treated or harassed in the matrimonial house. He submitted that on 5th October, 1998, maternal uncle of the respondent (wife) visited his house and pretended that her another maternal uncle, who is inhabitant of Ahmednagar, was seriously ill. Lateron she went with her brother. She did not return home after 2/3 days as per the assurance and hence, he visited her parents' house on 25th October 1998. They assured him to send her after the "Natal" festival.

 

Thereafter, they avoided to send her and she refused to accompany him. He was ready and willing to maintain her. She deserted him without any substantial reason. He denied that she was neglected by him. He urged, therefore, to dismiss the application. 5. The parties went to the trial before the learned Judicial Magistrate (F.C.), Shrirampur in the proceedings (Criminal M.A. No. 85 of 1999). The respondent examined herself in support of her application. The present petitioner also examined himself and adduced evidence of two neighbours in support of his defence. On appreciation of their evidence, the learned Magistrate came to the conclusion that the respondent (wife) failed to prove that she was neglected and refused to be maintained by the husband. The learned Magistrate held that within a short span of five months of the marriage, she left his company, probably because she wanted separate residence without domestic chore in respect of his parents and the brothers.

 

The learned Magistrate held that allegations of matrimonial cruelty are invented by the respondent (wife) and were unacceptable. In keeping with such findings, her application was dismissed. 6. Feeling aggrieved, the wife preferred revision application (Cri. Revision Petition No. 60 of 2000), which was allowed under the impugned order. The revisional Court reversed findings of the learned Magistrate and came to the conclusion that the version of the wife could not be discarded in the set of circumstances. The revisional Court awarded maintenance allowance at rate of Rs. 700/- (Rs. Seven hundred) p.m. in her favour from date of the application. The husband impugns Judgment rendered by the learned Sessions Judge in the revisional jurisdiction whereby the criminal revision petition No. 60 of 2000 was allowed. 7. Clinching question is as to whether the findings of the learned Judicial Magistrate could be regarded as perverse, arbitrary and patently erroneous so as to warrant interference by the learned Sessions Judge in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction. It is well settled that, normally, the revisional Court will not reappreciate the evidence.

 

The impugned Judgment does not show that the learned Sessions Judge recorded finding that the appreciation of the evidence, as done by the learned Magistrate suffered from vice of arbitrariness, perversity or capriciousness. 8. In the above background, I would briefly take survey of the evidence tendered by the parties. PW-1 Khristina (wife) testified that after six months of the marriage, the husband and his relatives started giving cruel treatment to her on account of demand of money. This part of her statement is discripant with allegations in the pleadings. In her application, she alleged that a gold locket, weighing 15 gms, a T.V. set and a mixer were demanded by the husband from her parents. There is no whisper of any such demand throughout her oral statement before the learned Magistrate. She stated that on 21st February 1999, the husband beaten up her and drove her out of the house. She lodged a complaint at the Yerwada Police Station, Pune. Her version shows that she had written two letters and narrated her plight in the matrimonial home to her father. Her brother used to visit her matrimonial home. Neither of them entered the witness box nor the letters sent by her or copy of Police complaint lodged by her, have been placed on record.

 

Her real married sister, by name, Archana resides in Yerwada locality at Pune. Her maternal uncle resides at Akurdi, Pune. She admits that she never informed her sister or any other relative about the ill-treatment meted out to her at hands of the husband and his relatives, except and save to her father. This conduct of the respondent was duly noticed by the learned Magistrate. She admitted that on 5th October 1998, her brother and maternal uncle visited the house of her husband to inform that her another maternal uncle, who is inhabitant of Ahmednagar, was suffering from illness. This admission corroborates contention of the husband that she was allowed to go to Ahmednagar to meet her ailing maternal uncle. 9. The learned Magistrate also noticed that the two neighbours, namely, DW-2 Shubhangi and DW-3 Bashid corroborated version of the husband.

 

The version of DW-1 Sanjay (husband) would show that there was no ill-treatment given to the wife. He states that on 5th October 1998, brother of the wife and her maternal uncle visited his house and informed that her another maternal uncle, who is inhabitant of Ahmednagar, was suffering from illness and they requested him to send her with them. His version shows that he allowed them to take her away after 2/3 days. Thereafter, on 11th October 1998, her brother took her to Ahmednagar. His version shows that he made attempts to fetch her back but it was invain. The version of DW-Shubhangi reveals that the petitioner and his wife were never seen quarrelling with each other. Her version reveals that the respondent (wife) resided with the petitioner only for five months after the marriage and he is not addicted to any vice.

 

There is only a middle wall between the residential quarter of the petitioner and DW-Shubhangi. She has no reason to speak lie nor any tangible material is gathered during her cross- examination. Similarly, DW-3 Bashid deposed that after five months of the marriage, the wife left house of the petitioner - Sanjay. In other words, the version of petitioner - Sanjay stands corroborated by the versions of two neighbours. 10. There is solitary and interested version of PW-Khristina in support of her application for separate maintenance allowance. Her version gives inconsistent account about so-called unlawful demand. She deviated from her pleadings. The findings of the learned Magistrate are based on due appreciation of the evidence. The further development may be noticed. The petitioner filed an application for restitution of conjugal rights in the Family Court at Pune.

 

His application (P.A. No. 500 of 2002) is allowed by the Family Court on 21st July 2003. So far, the respondent (wife) has not challenged the Judgment of the Family Court. The Family Court raised a specific issue as follows : " Whether the petitioner proves that the respondent without any reasonable excuse has withdrawn from the society ?" The learned Judge of the Family Court recorded an affirmative finding on the said issue. It is manifest, therefore, that not only the learned Judicial Magistrate, on appreciation of the evidence tendered by the spouses, came to the conclusion that she left his house, probably under burden of the domestic chores, but the civil Court also found that she is guilty of deserting him without any reasonable excuse. 11. The impugned Judgment reveals that the learned Sessions Judge undertook reassessment of the entire evidence though he was supposed to exercise the revisional jurisdiction. The learned Sessions Judge did not find any particular fault in the process of appreciation of evidence, as done by the learned Magistrate.

 

The relevant observations of the learned Sessions Judge may be reproduced as follows : "14. On carefully scrutinising the evidence of the applicant and opponent it will reveal that the matrimonial life of the applicant was not smoothly going on due to some quarrel and ultimately, it was resulted into leaving the house of opponent, by the applicant. Observations made by the lower Court that the applicant had stayed for short period in the house of the opponent and therefore, there is no possibility of ill-treatment, does not appear to be proper and legal in the circumstances of the case. When the applicant has positively stated that she was subjected to ill-treatment not only that but she has lodged complaint in Yerwada Police Station, this will prima-facie give rise that she was ill-treated and, therefore, she has left the house of the opponent. Provisions of Section 125 of Code of Criminal Procedure need not require that there must be a strict proof of cruelty".

 

The above observations of the learned Sessions Judge would indicate that he accepted version of the wife only because she gave positive statement that she was subjected to ill-treatment and had lodged the complaint at Yerwada Police Station. As stated before, there is no scintilla of evidence to show that really she had lodged a complaint about the matrimonial cruelty. Nor her so- called positive statement finds support from her pleadings. In this view of the matter, it is difficult to countenance the findings of the learned Sessions Judge.

 

Her mere statement could not have been taken as gospel truth as regards neglect and refusal of the husband to maintain her. It is overlooked by the learned Sessions Judge that within a short span of the marriage, the wife left his company and no notice was given within a reasonable time by her, seeking restitution of the conjugal rights. 12. The Apex Court, in Deb Narayan Halder v. Smt. Anushree Halder, 2003(4) RCR(Criminal) 189 : 2004(1) Apex Criminal 444 : 2003(3) B Cr C 286, held that the appellate Court or revisional Court while setting aside findings recorded by Court below must notice those findings and where the findings are of facts, evidence on record must be discussed, which should justify reversal of findings recorded by the Court below.

 

The Apex Court held that when the maintenance application of the wife was rejected by the learned Magistrate, holding that she had on her own left the matrimonial home, the High Court was not justified in reversing such findings recorded by the trial Court and to grant maintenance to the wife. 13. In view of foregoing discussion, it will have to be said that the findings of the learned Magistrate should not have been interfered with by the revisional Court and for the reasons, which are recorded by it. The inferences drawn by the learned Sessions Judge are improper and incorrect. There is misinterpretation of the evidence by the learned Sessions Judge. Under these circumstances, the impugned Judgment is unsustainable and liable to be interfered with. 14. In the result, the petition is allowed. The impugned Judgment is set aside and the Judgment rendered by the learned Magistrate in Criminal Misc. Application No. 85 of 1999 is restored. The wife's application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. is dismissed. However, the payment of maintenance allowance, if any, during the intervening period, is not refundable by her. No costs.


(Guest)

HC: Valid marriage must for complaints of cruelty by in-laws

 


KOCHI: A legally valid marriage is necessary to sustain complaints alleging cruelty by husband or relatives, the Kerala high court has held.

Justice B Kemal Pasha gave the ruling while considering a petition filed by a mother-in-law, Suprabha Dharan of Parippally in Kollam, seeking to quash a criminal case against her based on her daughter-in-law's complaint.

Based on the complaint, police had registered a criminal case against the husband and in-laws.

In the petition filed through advocate Siby Mathew, the mother-in-law contended that her son's marriage with another woman was subsisting during the period in which the alleged acts of cruelty took place.

Her son got divorced from his first wife only on April 30, 2003, and then married this woman on October 14, 2003, as per Special Marriage Act. The alleged acts of cruelty took place prior to registration of marriage. A valid marriage is a necessary ingredient to invite an offence under Section 498A of IPC. As her son's first marriage was existing, his relationship with the woman who complained could not create any valid marriage, the mother-in-law's counsel pointed out.

Opposing this, the complainant's counsel argued that a valid marriage is not required to invite the offence under Section 498A, whereas a long collaboration in the form of marriage is sufficient.

To decide the case, the court relied on a 2002 decision of the Supreme Court in Shivcharan Lal Verma v State of Madhya Pradesh. It was held by a three-member bench that a second marriage will be null and void on account of the subsistence of the earlier valid marriage.

Quashing the case against the mother-in-law, the high court held that an offence under Section 498A cannot be included in the case for any period prior to October 14, 2003, when the marriage was registered.
Source : https://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2013-07-27/kochi/40832105_1_first-marriage-special-marriage-act-mother-in-law

 

498A fighter (tutor)     28 July 2013

thnak you sir i got the judgment , here i need the judgement for 498A as we appleied for revision and " the judgement/citation/finding of civil court [ sec09 restitution of conjugal rights hindu marraige act] binded on criminal court [ 498A] if anyone have please provide or provide link .

if not found then i will go woth section 125 judgmets...

thanks

Divya (nil)     28 July 2013

Execllent updates by "Sufferer"...Actually reading all this continuously peps up our drive coz even we females r big victims of false 498a etc..

 

u have mentioned that in point 27 of DV provisions that  "Use TEP, DP3 etc effectively to push them to wall and to give them their own taste."...i know DP3 but unclear with TEP.....Kindly clarify what is TEP.

 

Thanks

Divya (nil)     28 July 2013

hi mr. sufferer.....i got the answer for TEP .....it stands for "Tax Evasion Petition"...extremely good option


(Guest)
To all victims & would be victims,

Following are judgements of quashed false 498a so go ahead and read it carefully it would save you million times before any wrong guidance & steps.


Thanks,

A sufferer......
 
 
Read :

498a-quash-under-jurisdiction-issue

1.       https://498afighthard.wordpress.com/2011/02/16/ipc-498a-quashed-jurisdiction-issue/

[PATNA HIGH COURT]

 

2.       https://498afighthard.wordpress.com/2011/02/11/ipc-498a406120-b-quashed-jurisdiction-issue-10-accused/

(498a Wife taken back by husband after mutual compromise again got hit of 498a, IPC 498a/406 Quashed by Ranchi High Court-Jurisdiction Issue.)

 

[RANCHI HIGH COURT]

 

3.    https://498afighthard.wordpress.com/2010/10/25/section-498a-i-p-c-and-territorial-jurisdiction/

[ RAJSTHAN HIGH COURT]

4.    https://498afighthard.wordpress.com/2010/10/25/498a-%e2%80%93-territorial-jurisdiction/

[PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT]

5.    https://498afighthard.wordpress.com/2010/10/25/section-498a-jurisdiction/

[MADRAS HIGH COURT]

6.    https://498afighthard.wordpress.com/2010/10/25/quashing-of-fir-and-jurisdiction/

[DELHI HIGH COURT]

7.    https://498afighthard.wordpress.com/2010/10/15/498a-quashed-jurisdiction/

[PATNA HIGH COURT]

8.    https://498afighthard.wordpress.com/2010/10/15/498a40634-quashno-jurisdiction-in-the-place-of-offence-in-case-the-alleged-cruelty-taken-place-overseas/

[DELHI HIGH COURT]

 

 

498A QUASH AND AQUITTAL JUDGEMENTS

 

9.    https://498afighthard.wordpress.com/2011/03/31/hc-498a-quashed-against-a2-to-a5/

[RANCHI HIGH COURT]

 

10. https://498afighthard.wordpress.com/2011/02/16/ipc-498a-quashed-fir-to-harras-husband-and-his-familyabuse-of-process-of-law/

[ SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]

11. https://498afighthard.wordpress.com/2011/02/16/ipc-498a-quashed-complaint-after-divorce-malicious-supression-of-facts/

[PATNA HIGH COURT]

12. https://498afighthard.wordpress.com/2011/02/16/ipc-498a-quashed-not-a-relative-of-husband/

[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]

13. https://498afighthard.wordpress.com/2011/02/15/ipc-498a-quashed-abuse-of-process-of-law/

 

[PATNA HIGH COURT]

Once allegation made by the complainant was thoroughly investigated by the investigating agency and, thereafter, final form was submitted and subsequently a protest petition which was filed by the complainant had also been rejected on 28.6.2000 while accepting the final form, the court feels that allowing the second complaint on the same allegation and that too after solemnization of marriage by opposite party no.2 with another one during life time of petitioner no.1, will amount to allowing abuse of process of court.

 

14. https://498afighthard.wordpress.com/2011/02/15/ipc-498a506323504114-quashed-abuse-of-process-of-law/

[AHMEDABAD HIGH COURT]

15. https://498afighthard.wordpress.com/2011/02/15/ipc-498a3235045062144-quashed-no-case-of-dowry-demand-or-cruelty-against-petitioner/

 

[AHMEDABAD HIGH COURT]

 

16. https://498afighthard.wordpress.com/2011/02/15/ipc-498adp3-4-quashed-repeat-firearlier-case-dismissed-by-court-for-non-appearance-of-wife/

[PATNA HIGH COURT]

17. https://498afighthard.wordpress.com/2011/02/13/ipc-498a323-quashed-divorce-already-granted-to-wife-in-divorce-deedpetition-no-allegation-of-demand-of-dowrycruelty/

[PATNA HIGH COURT]

18. https://498afighthard.wordpress.com/2011/02/13/ipc-498a494-quashed-second-wife-cannot-file-498a494-if-first-marriage-with-first-wife-still-existing/

[PATNA HIGH COURT]

19. https://498afighthard.wordpress.com/2011/02/13/ipc-498a-quashed-delay-in-filing-the-complain-forced-marriage-and-kidnap/

[PATNA HIGH COURT]

20. https://498afighthard.wordpress.com/2011/02/13/ipc-498a-quashed-not-a-relative-of-inlaws-family/

[PATNA HIGH COURT]

21. https://498afighthard.wordpress.com/2011/02/13/ipc-498a30634-quashed-bombay-hc-evidence-does-not-show-that-cruel-treatment-or-harassment-is-given-by-the-appellants-which-lead-to-commission-of-suicide-by-the-deceased/

[BOMBAY HIGH COURT]

22. https://498afighthard.wordpress.com/2011/02/09/ipc-498a40650634-quashed-even-after-wife-opposing-quashing-of-firwife-earlier-got-divorce-on-mutual-compromise/

[DELHI HIGH COURT]

23. https://498afighthard.wordpress.com/2011/02/09/ipc-498a406-quashed-loc-cancelled/

[DELHI HIGH COURT]

24. https://498afighthard.wordpress.com/2011/02/09/ipc-498a40634-quashed-section-crpc-468-limitation-of-time-invoked/

 

[DELHI HIGH COURT]

 

25. https://498afighthard.wordpress.com/2011/02/08/ipc-498a304b-quashed/

[DELHI HIGH COURT]

Every suicide after marriage cannot be presumed to be a suicide due to dowry demand. There is an unfortunate development under criminal justice system that even in those cases where accused should be examined as a witness by the defence, the accused persons are not examined as a witness. In matrimonial offences, it is the accused and his family members who know what transpired within the family and they should always volunteer themselves as witnesses in the Court so that the Court gets their side of the version by way of evidence and testimony. Under Section 106 of Evidence Act, when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. When a death takes place within the four walls of matrimonial home, the husband and in-laws should come forward and depose as to what was the real cause of death. The criminal practice in India has been on the lines of old track that accused must not speak and he should not be examined as a witness. I do not know why this practice developed but in all matrimonial offences, this practice is shutting the doors of the Court, to the version of the other side, by their advocates.

26.   https://498afighthard.files.wordpress.com/2011/02/manu-nath-others.pdf

[DELHI HIGH COURT]

27. https://498afighthard.wordpress.com/2011/02/08/498a304b406-quashed-after-charge-framing-by-lower-court/

[ DELHI HIGH COURT]

28. https://498afighthard.wordpress.com/2011/02/06/304b498a-quashed-by-sc-trial-court-aquittal-decision-is-correct-high-court-conviction-decision-is-not-correct/

[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]

29. https://498afighthard.wordpress.com/2011/02/06/498a-quashed-by-sc-vague-allegations-fir-quashed/

[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]

[In order to lodge a proper complaint, mere mention of the sections andthe language of those sections is not end of the matter. What is requiredto be brought to the notice of the court is particulars of the offence committed by each and every accused and the role played by each and every accused in committing of that offence. The complaint is sadly vague.]

30. https://498afighthard.wordpress.com/2011/02/06/498a-quashed-by-sc-ipc-498a-after-divorce-fir-is-manifestly-attended-with-malafides-and-actuated-withulterior-motive/

[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]

31. https://498afighthard.wordpress.com/2011/01/30/ipc-498anot-a-relative-of-husband/

Concubine or Paramour cannot be termed as relatives

Detailed definition of  Relative by Hon’ble Supreme Court

[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]

32. https://498afighthard.wordpress.com/2011/01/30/ipc-498a-quashed/

[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]

33. https://498afighthard.wordpress.com/2011/01/10/cheating498a-and-2nd-marriage-is-not-valid/

[AP HIGH COURT]

34. https://498afighthard.wordpress.com/2011/01/10/section-406-and-498a-of-ipc-quash/

[DELHI HIGH COURT]

35. https://498afighthard.wordpress.com/2011/01/10/498a-quash-against-minor-girls/

[DELHI HIGH COURT]

36. https://498afighthard.wordpress.com/2010/11/04/contradictory-dying-declarations-accused-discharged-from-498a304b/

[DELHI HIGH COURT]

37. https://498afighthard.wordpress.com/2010/10/29/498a-quashed-even-after-wife-backed-off-by-from-mutual-agreement-after-taking-divorce-from-husband/

[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]

38. https://498afighthard.wordpress.com/2010/10/29/no-relative-498a-quashed-by-sc/

[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]

39. https://498afighthard.wordpress.com/2010/10/29/girl-friendconcubine-is-not-relative-498a-quashed-by-sc/

[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]

40. https://498afighthard.wordpress.com/2010/10/29/no-relative-of-the-complainant-498a-quashed-by-sc/

[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]

41. https://498afighthard.wordpress.com/2010/10/15/498a-323-and-341-quashed-fir-after-divorce-with-oblique-motivemalicioussuppression-of-facts/

[PATNA HIGH COURT]

42. https://498afighthard.wordpress.com/2010/10/15/498a-quashed-after-cognizance-from-sdjm/

[PATNA HIGH COURT]

43. https://498afighthard.wordpress.com/2010/10/15/498a304bno-conviction-for-mere-demand-of-dowry/

[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA]

44. https://498afighthard.wordpress.com/2010/10/15/498a-quash/

[DELHI HIGH COURT]

45. https://498afighthard.wordpress.com/2010/10/15/498a-quash-%e2%80%93-delayed-lodging-of-fir/

[DELHI HIGH COURT]


3 Like

498A fighter (tutor)     29 July 2013

nice collection by suffere , it help a lot to the victim of false 498A,

sir still if you have "sec09 finding bind 498A " then please provide as

it is rarest of rare and i found one and only one in which on the basis of civil court decision under sec09 restitution of conjgal right hidnu marraige act the criminal case of 498 A is quashed.

if you hv such citation or judgement then please provide as soon as possible.

thanks a lot

Sundari (Sr.Executive)     31 July 2013

Thanks a lot for sending some insights about DV cases. It would be great help if any judegements accepting video conferencing facility for DV Cases.  It would be highly helpful for us to win in this false DV case.


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  


Recent Topics


View More

Related Threads


Loading

Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query