LCI Learning

Share on Facebook

Share on Twitter

Share on LinkedIn

Share on Email

Share More

Roshni B.. (For justice and dignity)     01 September 2011

Living together not essential 2 file domestic violence case

 

NEW DELHI:


Further empowering women to fight domestic violence, a trial court has held that a woman can claim her rights under the law for protection from domestic violence even while living separately from her husband and in-laws.

Additional Sessions Judge Anju Bajaj Chandna held that as long as the couple is married to each other, the wife cannot be denied protection and other rights under the Domestic Violence Act. "It is not essential that on the date of filing of the complaint, the parties should have been living together and it is sufficient that they have lived together as husband and wife in the past," said the court, underlining the legal condition under the Act for filing the complaint.

"In the present case, the marriage between the parties is still subsisting," said the court, setting aside an April 2011 order of a magisterial court, which had dismissed a complaint under the DV Act by an estranged wife against her husband on the grounds that she was no longer residing with him.

The court order came on an appeal filed by the woman against the magisterial court's order. The woman got married in March 1993, but had been living separately from her husband since January 1996. She had first moved the court under Domestic Violence Act in March 2008, seeking monetary relief and compensation from her husband besides protection from domestic violence.

"It is the duty of the magistrate to see that in view of subsistence of status of husband and wife between the parties whether the relief sought by the petitioner can be granted within the provisions of the Act," the court added. The court directed the magistrate to "reconsider the facts of the case and proceed in accordance with law".


https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/delhi/Living-together-not-essential-to-file-case-under-domestic-violence-act-says-court/articleshow/9815197.cms



Learning

 15 Replies

Saurabh..V (Law Consultant)     02 September 2011

@Roshni

 

a trial court has held

 

Don't you think it's more than publicity of such cases that you do which are worthless?

 

FOR DV CASE

TRIAL COURT = SESSIONS COURT

 

Only a High Court or Supreme Court could set precedents. Trial court claiming that they are empowered to go beyond the statute is only insult to the setting of the legislature.

 

Moreover, nowhere in the world, any dictionary could mean "Domestic" as living apart.

 

According to my dictionary

DOMESTIC = Of or relating to the home

 

There are many other usages of the word Domestic. Like for instance, "Domestic Servant". The essence of the word domestic shows that the servant is acting like a servant when he/she is inside home and not outside.

 

Similarly a domestic relation is something which is pursued under same roof. Living seperately would never include domestic relation. Hence in my considered view, such interpretation by a sessions court is only misuse of their power of words, unconstitutional and miscarriage of justice.

 

When there is already section 498A available which defines cruelity what could be the purpose of such interpretation? Uuummmm.........ooooo... Now I understand. S.498A has been agreed by more than 90% courts to be a revenge weapon and Delhi High Court has ordered that arrests only to be made after an approval from DCP so feminists pushing DV Act and its interpretations so that the arrest procedures can be continued.

 

Also apart from this news, one more thing that attracts my attention is the name of the ASJ. Her name is Anju Bajaj Chandna. I've seen many such women who have similar names with two consecutive sirnames.

 

In my personal view, there is something wrong with these women. I do not understand how two consecutive sirnames are spelled and why are they necessary!! Such name in itself shows how high headed the bearer of such name is. There is nowhere in the world that after marriage the girl does not leave behind everything including her sirname and joins her husband with everything. She shares everything with him and the husband also shares everything with her. It's completely new life. But unfortunately, many feminists feel otherwise and they go beyond the levels of thinking and raise insensible questions. Like why should I leave my sirname! What rubbish! When you want to claim 50% share with your husband, you have leave that 50% from your pre-marital family. What's wrong in that? When you feel that it is not wrong to lay equal claim with the husband in his property and every other asset then you should leave behind your pre-marital things.

 

Feminists are so biased and obsessed that they forget that the results of their activism are leading to break-down of families.....

 

//peace

/Saurabh..V

2 Like

Roshni B.. (For justice and dignity)     02 September 2011

Originally posted by :Saurabh..V
"
@Roshni

 

a trial court has held

 

Don't you think it's more than publicity of such cases that you do which are worthless?

 
 
 

 

 

If you find these posted cases worthless,why do you always reply to them ?

 

Why I post them?

 

It's my choice...Any problem kya?

Tajobsindia (Senior Partner )     02 September 2011

@ Roshni

The problem with your news postings is that you donot know Law at all and if a person who does not know Law post such news posts then it is not that he/she should take comments to such posts in arrogance as replied by you to @ Saurabh's post but should understand how Law works then take comments in right spirits.
Reasoning:
You (as in Roshni B) as well as the news item re. ASJ forgot that Delhi High Court has already explained what is 'domestic relationship" in Bharat Ratna DV Act.


You read down annexed Judgment of DHC. I know you have problem with my English postings but I am sure you may have no problem in reading Judgments as you read news itmes and might have understood the news to post it here and if yes then it is your arrogance read as stupidity here in Law forums to stir controversies showing that you are just a 'innocent" public writer.


PS:
I know agrieved party(s) have SLP (Crl) option too in re. news item.


Attached File : 85555 206604 38 18 delhihc meaningofdomesticrelation stayingtogetheratsomepointdoesnotmeandomesticrelation.pdf downloaded: 333 times
2 Like

(Guest)

Aapki to sabhi baate sir ke upar se nikal jaati hai Tajobs...After all you're the biggest puzzle of India.

 

Inki sabhi ke aage chati hai.But jaise hee Hema jee ati hai,ye ghabrane lagte hai.:P

 

 


Tajobsindia (Senior Partner )     02 September 2011

@ Princess

1. Donot talk crap here in this post especially to me as I never replied / commented to you in this post. It may be other matter if you are Roshni B in @ Princess avatar and be it so read again my aforesaid reply made to Roshni B.


2.  Hema and etal donot bother me as is evident from my direct legal interaction with her in several family law posts of th epast. We have differences on various family Law points that does not means we are afraid to face each other or either of us run away! What nonsence you speak here in legal forums!  Now sprint and yourself invite Hema to this post and read my comments directly to her if I make (if any).  


3. Also give birth to more Hema's in LCI and I bet to you I can singly handle more Hema's / Zeenat's and Ors. in family legal forums on pure Law points. 


4.
If you also donot understand English then move out of the posts which are written in English language instead of creating frictions with your pink humors.  


5.
Stupid time pass women don't you know a ASJ's judgment has no intrinsic value even to quote in Legal Forums as no affected person (either gender) can use the same in h/er case and then Appeal option is there before State's Hon'ble HC if preferred by eithe rparty to matter and then before Hon'ble Sc if again preferred by either party? I can produce several ASJ of Delhi's trial Courts 2006 - 2008 period made Judgments particular to re. news subject where they have refused ruling as there was no "domestic relationship" woth pondering to give interim awards.


So let me now tell you to 'SHUT UP' publicly and take with you your nonsense humor directly made to me. Now I speak in this tone with my family is none of your business so donot rake again and again your such nonsence especially to me.

Saurabh..V (Law Consultant)     02 September 2011

Hon'ble Justice S.N. Dhingra has been the torch bearing leader of the movement to save innocent men & their families from false and malafide criminal cases filed by crook wives.

 

He is the one who is responsible for the respite to the whole family of the man who was saved after the order restraining arrest unless DCP of the area does not approve the arrest even when S.498A IPC continued to be "cognizable" & "non-bailable".

 

I wonder how people like @Roshni keep pn posting such technical matters alike media without any knowledge about the law. Media also posts what sells and @Roshni posts what ignites outrage!!

 

Such news atricles are posted only to sell news papers and to increase circulation by spicing up the news. But the irony is that atleast the news is true though the words are twisted.

 

In the subject post, the ASJ has gone beyond her powers to interpret the laws and that too has been interpreted with any respect to any of the orders passed by her senior judges in Delhi High Court.

 

Bearing such indifferent attitude towards set procedure of law has jammed the wheels of justice and it is because of such biased practices, miscreants also file false cases without any fear.

 

//peace

/Saurabh..V

1 Like

Roshni B.. (For justice and dignity)     02 September 2011

Originally posted by :Tajobsindia
"
@ Roshni

The problem with your news postings is that you donot know Law at all and if a person who does not know Law post such news posts then it is not that he/she should take comments to such posts in arrogance as replied by you to @ Saurabh's post but should understand how Law works then take comments in right spirits.
Reasoning:
You (as in Roshni B) as well as the news item re. ASJ forgot that Delhi High Court has already explained what is 'domestic relationship" in Bharat Ratna DV Act.


You read down annexed Judgment of DHC. I know you have problem with my English postings but I am sure you may have no problem in reading Judgments as you read news itmes and might have understood the news to post it here and if yes then it is your arrogance read as stupidity here in Law forums to stir controversies showing that you are just a 'innocent" public writer.


PS: I know agrieved party(s) have SLP (Crl) option too in re. news item.
"

 

I very well know that HC or SC's judgements are to be followed by lower courts.You do not have to tell me anything.

 

I think you need to apply your common sense here,that these were posted for knowing people's opinions.

I am not like "those people" who publish cheap,vulgar things against the opp. s*x,which many LCI people here are fond of.

If you find TP "metro wives" stupidI,why do you start publically reminding these metro wives like Utpala,Hema,Ambika,etc to come back to LCI,if they stop writing here for a long time?

 

Why do you misst them so much,if they stop participating here even for 1 week??

 

Do you like to debating with stupid people?

 

Or are you afraid to face smarter ones???

 

My news ignites aggression in you,which is evident from your tone and your overreactions that are seen in each reply.

 

If you are so much outraged by these news,why did you post METRO WIVES CLUB,"DUMMY'S GUIDE TO 498A,& several other such STUPID,CHEAP threads?What were your intentions?

 

Were they any news?

 

Were they any judgements?

 

Please stop thinking that LCI family forum belongs to you.

 

It belongs to us all.We all have the right to participate here.If you do not like any thread,you may not participate there at all.But there's no point in telling us that we must not post this or that.

 

 

 

Saurabh..V (Law Consultant)     02 September 2011

@Roshni

 

Just a single line answer to your query why @Tajobsindia posts those items:

 

He has knowledge about them and those are his work of dedication and research and not a "copy&paste" job like yours.

 

How many posts have you contributed to this forum which were researched and typed and then posted by you? I think none! All you do is "copy&paste" without giving due weightage to the fact that such articles do not need any public attention or opinion as they are already available in the news papers. most of your articles/posts goes unanswered due to their inherent "copy&paste" behaviour.

 

I suggest you support this forum with your genuie and unbiased knowledge. You words connote you are a good human being who is fighting against odds. Join knowledgeable persons like @Tajobsindia to grow you knowledge & learn the basic application of law.

 

Just one curious question: Do you know the golden rule of interpretation? Do you know, that when there arises a confusion on the law point about clarification on any statute, how does any HC or Apex court interprets the law?

 

If you don't know this, then you should not feel shy to ask in open forum. I also went into spat with @Adv.Chandu, but very recently I requested him to explain his view point to increase my knowledge. Does that make me any smaller? Hell NO! Then what stops you from agreeing that your posts are not based on any knowledge but only general sense?

 

Grow up yaar......lets be think tanks with shared nodes :-)

 

//peace

/Saurabh..V

1 Like

hema (law officer)     02 September 2011

I totally go with the reported judgement of ASJ and there is no ambiguity regarding its legality.  The Section 2(f) of the Act defines "domestic relationship", which says - "domestic relationship means a relationship between two persons who live or have, at any point of time, lived together in a shared house hold......."

So, no illegality is there in the cited judgment.  It is quite natural, husband and wife lived together and she was subjected to cruelty and on one fine day she was thrown out of matrimonial house and she went to her parental house and tried to reconcile differences for six months and finally lost hope and filed domestic violence case against the husband for the cruelty she met out during her stay at matrimonial home. At the time of filing the petition,  they were not living together, so can you say that she is not entitled to invoke the provisions of DV Act?

Now, I will come to other topic for which Roshni is ridiculed for highlighting the above judgment.  In her own right she can place whatever she likes on this forum.  She has never used any foul language against any one.  If any one does not find any legal value in such posts, they may well stop to read her posts, but running her down and calling her legal ignorant is reprehensible.

I recall several things on this point.

one Smt. Kamini Lau, an addl. district judge from Delhi gave a judgment on dowry matter and in such judgment  she held that dowry giving is an offence and directed the police to register FIR against the girl's parents.  She has also given a general direction that as and when women come with a complaint in the police station saying that their parents gave dowry, the police should register FIRs against wifes' parents in addition to registering FIR against the boys for taking dowry. 

When this judgment came, men's rights activists continuously for months together posted this judgment again and again and discussed with contended hearts joyfully saying that they will keep the wife's parents in jail.  NOW THOSE PEOPLE WHO ARE TEACHING TO ROSHNI THAT ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE'S RULINGS ARE NOT BINDING FORGOT AT THAT TIME THAT EVEN MS. KAMINI LAU'S JUDGEMENT IS NOT BINDING.

 Later on came Justice Dhingra.  He also in one of his judgements upheld the position taken by Ms. Kamini Lau.  He further ruled that if stridhan articles are not listed as per the rules prescribed in Dowry Prohibition Act, the items demanded by the wife may be fictitious and the husband need not return them.   AGAIN THESE MEN'S RIGHTS ACTIVISTS CAME ON THIS FORUM WITH A LOT OF NOISE SAYING SEVERAL THINGS AGAINST WIVES SEEKING JUSTICE.  AT THAT TIME THEY HAVE NOT SAID THAT THESE RULINGS DELIVERED BY A SINGLE JUDGE CAN BE OVER-RULED BY DIVISION BENCH AND SUPREME COURT.  Now, they are trying to teach Roshni that her cited judgement can be ruled out.

FYI, MS. KAMINI LAU'S JUDGMENT AND MR. SHIV NARAIN DHINGRA'S JUDGEMENTS WERE OVERRULED BY DELHI HIGH COURT ON THE GROUND THAT SECTION 7(3) OF THE D.P. ACT DOES NOT PERMIT PROSECUTION AGAINST THE DOWRY GIVERS.  THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT UPHELD THIS DECISION.

Now comes the interesting part.

Last year, the socalled men's rights activists created so much noise just while filing "Varsha Kapoor's case" in High Court saying that they are challenging the constitutional validity of Domestic Violence Act and they are also challenging to make mother in law and sister in law as respondents and the court will give judgement in their favour instantly and it is matter of days the court will declare DV Act unconstitutional and throw it away in dust bin.  The Delhi High Court gave a judgment very quickly within three months, but alas, upheld the DV Act as constitutional and its need in the present circumstances and also ruled that women can be respondents in DV cases.  The judgment is one of the most illuminating judgments and the people interested in DV cases must read it thoroughly.  It also talks about how laws are made, amended and how the social pressures and desires mould the law.  I will post it in a few days.

But once, the judgement came out, these men's rights' activists, not even once, acknowledged that they lost case.  They want to keep the people in dark and again and again are posting the same points saying that DV Act is unconstitutional.  If any one who read the judgement of delhi high court will laugh at these people and their feeble efforts to hide the truth and talk nothing but non-sense.

I summarize their attitude:

1.  If women post the judgements of District judge, they ridicule it, but they post District Judge' judgement brazenlly (eg. Ms. kamini Lau's judgement)

2.  If women refer high court judgement, they ridicule it, but they post HC judgement as if it would be applicable through out the widdth and bredth of India (e.g.Justic Shiv Narain dhingra's judgements)

3.  They simply hide the judgements delivered against them in High Court and Supreme Court, but tell us that they are here only to share knowledge and not to take any sides.

 

1 Like

Saurabh..V (Law Consultant)     02 September 2011

@Hema

 

I just want to tell you :: Go home, and cry your sorrows in the pillow!

 

Regarding that big bold green highlighter I would appreciate if you could show the so called "over-ruling" judgment by Apex Court. Let me also see how the Apex Court was blinded and WHAT WERE THE PECULIAR FACTS!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Moreover, feminists are not animals! They are amongst us. Though they are wear the human dresses. Alike politicians. They also make many laws. Do we still say just because they are hon'ble ministers they cannot have a set mind to go against something they personally don't like? Rubbish feminists!

 

Why is there an uproar in the country against corruption? It is because this is eating away the lives of common man, alike dowry etc laws... I appealed @Roshni to be a team and work here in the welfare of the aggrieved. But your comments do not gel with me at all! You really need to follow a simple path - GET LOST!

 

I don't know how many lives did 498A and D.V.Act saved, but they ruined 10X more families. They are crops of the feminist movement in our country after it eat-up countries like US, UK etc.

 

In UK people fear of marriage only because if something goes wrong, there is no respite for the husband but all laws blows trumptes for females. Whereas in our country we still believe in the institution of marriage where a stranger boy and girl agrees by relying on their parent's words to marry each other.

 

Feminists or say biased unthical inhumans have nowhere to go but HELL! They literally do not fear anything due to their self-consumed behaviour and self-centric attitude.

 

Once they are bitten by a man, they start a cold war against EVERY MAN in this world. Still I've pity on you!

 

WHICH LAW IN THIS COUNTRY SAVES THE HONOR OF A MAN WHO COMMITS SUICIDE WITHIN 7YR OF MARRIAGE?

 

WHICH LAW IN THIS COUNTRY SAVES THE MAN FROM FALSE CASES FILED BY THE CROOK WIFE ??

 

NONE!!

NONE!!!

NONE!!!!

 

Go ask the legistature why and how are such laws constitutional which only talk about ONE GENDER and simply forgot the other?

 

The consitution starts with the words "WE THE PEOPLE........." and it does not include or mention about gender, race or religion but simply WE.

 

Loosers .......

 

//peace

/Saurabh..V

Saurabh..V (Law Consultant)     02 September 2011

I seriously doubt the authenticity of the profiles on this website......

 

All we have to do is speak a single word against one of the profile and others just pounce on us like frankenstein monsters...

 

May be it is only 2-3 friends (feminists) having IDs of more than 10 in numbers to show that more people are supporting their version......

 

Kiddoss.....


(Guest)
Originally posted by :Saurabh..V
"
I seriously doubt the authenticity of the profiles on this website......

 

All we have to do is speak a single word against one of the profile and others just pounce on us like frankenstein monsters...

 

May be it is only 2-3 friends (feminists) having IDs of more than 10 in numbers to show that more people are supporting their version......

 

Kiddoss.....
"

1.If so  tehn u , Tajob, onlytruth are all same.As when u posted here Tajob came here to support u.

 

2. Do we enact law???These women favouring laws are fruits of hard work of women organisation/activists. You victims of these laws can start a movement and compel Govt to amend  these Acts or enact new Acts for you all.

 

 

3. The following judgement is being given by already existed points/provisions in the Bharat Ratna Act.

Why d super legal person or non-legal law-expert like you cud not ever mentioned those points??

https://www.lawyersclubindia.com/forum/Mother-in-law-can-file-bharat-ratna-dv-complaint-against-d-43337.asp

1 Like

Saurabh..V (Law Consultant)     03 September 2011

2. Do we enact law???These women favouring laws are fruits of hard work of women organisation/activists. You victims of these laws can start a movement and compel Govt to amend  these Acts or enact new Acts for you all.

 

Govt. did not amended laws under any pressure!

 

F.Y.I. these feminist laws are crops of the Convention in the International Conference. That is when India also ratified and brought changes in the rules.

 

If Govt. were to bow down to any sort of pressure exerted by activists groups, then J&K would be the first state to bid good-bye to India. Moreover, Govt. in India has always been on the side of untouched voters for their vote politics. First they divided citizens based on caste (hindu-muslim strategy), then it was turn amongst Hindus when Dalits were seperated, then came OBC etc., and the latest in their divide and rule policy is Male-Female divide. If you feminists cant see it or cant understand it, then keep waiting untill a day would come when single and unmarried females would be searching father for their kiddos.....like Us & UK :-(

 

I'm not against any law which provides protection to the fundamental rights of any citizen. My uproar is against of biased laws, copy&paste jobs and hypocratic people. Feminists are biggest hypocrates in this world. On one side they show how innocent and incapable and helpless they are but when it comes to reaping the benefits they suddenly turn exxtra-talented and say, "WE WALK AHEAD OF MEN"..........What is this?

 

//peace

/Saurabh..V

1 Like

(Guest)

without looking at merit of arguments, here some girls are just attacking opponents. 


Leave a reply

Your are not logged in . Please login to post replies

Click here to Login / Register  



Post a Suggestion for LCI Team
Post a Legal Query