IPC 498A

This Is About Due Process In India…

• Blog

« Justice Kailash Gambhir (Delhi HC) Guidelines On 498A Cases

Justice R Regupathi (Chennai HC) Ends The Abuse Of 498A »

Excerpts And Judgments To Fight Domestic Violence Act Cases

Published August 16, 2008 498A abuse , 498a judgments , 498A misuse , DV act , Feminism , Kapil Rastogi , Kapil
Rastogi Vs Urvashi 64 Comments
Tags: DV act

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:
 • AP HC DV NOT RETROSPECTIVE – 3714/2007
To understand this principle, read this article:
• http://cs.anu.edu.au/~James.Popple/publications/articles/retroactive/

• 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
________________________________________
Ads by Google
Children in need of Care
24 hr toll free helpline in India 2 million calls/year in 90 cities
www.ChildlineIndia.org.in

Like
Be the first to like this post.
64 Responses to “Excerpts And Judgments To Fight Domestic Violence Act Cases”
Feed for this Entry Trackback Address

1. 1 Vijay September 1, 2008 at 11:42 am

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.
Reply

○ 2 raju February 20, 2011 at 7:15 am

Sir,
 We were separated june 2006 dvc case was filed on October 2010 is it
retrospective effect or not as confirmed by TRAIL court judge it was effected.
Kindly provide me good citations urgently
Thanks
Raju
Reply

2. 3 cruiserdeep September 3, 2008 at 9:02 am

Also see: http://bok498a.blogspot.com/2008/08/retrospective-clause-in-dv-strategy.html
Reply

3. 4 ashwin September 8, 2008 at 8:40 am

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
Reply

4. 5 ashwin September 8, 2008 at 8:41 am

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
Reply

5. 6 Rajesh K September 13, 2008 at 11:28 am

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
Reply

6. 7 Rajesh September 18, 2008 at 6:20 pm

the more time it takes, the more u r frustrating them….so chill
Reply

7. 8 Rajesh September 18, 2008 at 6:21 pm

The more it takes time, the more u tire them, the more they will get frustrated
chill…
Reply

8. 9 Manish September 21, 2008 at 5:01 pm

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.
Reply
 ○ 10 Bharat Pawar October 18, 2010 at 6:29 am
Where can I get above judgement copy of PANJI court. My wife has launched a
case under DV after 7 yeras . Incidents are noted before existance of this Act.
Reply

9. 11 RAMESH KUMAR MAKKAD October 1, 2008 at 11:44 am

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
Reply

10. 12 nabachandra October 16, 2008 at 11:34 am

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
Reply

11. 13 nanda October 16, 2008 at 11:38 am

kindly loaded the judgement copy of case no. crl.p 3714/2007 delivered by andhra
pradesh highcourt.
Reply

12. 14 mohit December 5, 2008 at 4:45 pm

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
Reply
13. 15 aejaz_legal January 6, 2009 at 8:25 am
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
Reply

14. 16 DR D C VOHRA February 1, 2009 at 5:00 pm

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.
Reply

15. 17 Neeraj Aggarwal February 10, 2009 at 11:41 am

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.
Reply

16. 18 asish February 14, 2009 at 6:27 pm

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
Reply

17. 19 MyNation February 16, 2009 at 11:51 am

More Judgments can be found here
http://mynation.net/docs/
Reply

18. 20 Swarup Sarkar February 23, 2009 at 6:41 am

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”
Reply

19. 21 Manoj March 27, 2009 at 6:48 am

Is there any case law on whether DV ACt applies to people living outside India
Reply

20. 22 GP April 7, 2009 at 9:46 pm

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.
Reply
21. 23 lucky chichi April 30, 2009 at 4:06 am
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!
Reply

22. 24 arun sharma July 25, 2009 at 4:28 am

sir, got married on 3rd dec 2007. wife is daughter of si police.left matrimonial home on
18th of may 2008 along with parents.on 21st of september 2007 an fir was lodged thru
ssp u/s 147,498a,323,324,504,506 and 3/4 dp act.we got arresting stay till filling
173(3).now case diary has been filed exonerating all of us. in the mean while lodged 406
and dv act seperately.
now i hv recd summons for 406 and DV act.pl advice what to do next
Reply

23. 25 Ravi Singh August 1, 2009 at 10:03 am

Sir,
Jaihind !
I am a retired Air Force Personnal facing constant threats of false dowary case from my
wife and her parents.I am subjeted to both physical and psycological violance for the last
12 years.Iam the only son to lookafter my ailing parents. Moreover, km father is a patient
of bone-cancer. now my in-laws and wife are compelling to leave my parents on their
own which is not possible for me.
Please guide me how can i save my two childerns and my parents from such a situation.
Anticipating a quick reply.
Thanking you.
Reply

24. 26 Neeraj August 1, 2009 at 6:31 pm

Dear Ravi,
Please call any volunteer on http://www.savefamily.org -> Contact Us Page. They will
definetly help you.
Neeraj
Reply
25. 27 rajesh August 2, 2009 at 11:33 am
My wife has claimed Stridhan in 498 A and was recovered whatevr I had.
She again filed DV Act and demanding more articles producing fake bills.
Please advise if she can do that
Regards
Reply

26. 28 Ravi Kiran August 21, 2009 at 11:48 am

A wife CAN file a DVA case if her articles and ornaments are retained in the house of the
husband. But if she had “never demanded for their return to her custody” or “If the
husband did not refuse to return them” then her case is gone.
Leaving things at her husband’s place and going away is different from the husband
retaining them with him.
Reply

○ 29 kkmittal October 17, 2009 at 6:05 am

Dear Mr Ravi KIran, Pl read all judgements of Justice Dhingra on this site In one
judgement he has ordered to register a criminal case against girl & her family
under Dowry Prohibision Act
Reply

27. 30 Adv. Ehrlich A. de Sousa September 28, 2009 at 10:02 am

I am defending a Domestic Violence Case filed by the wife against her husband in Goa in
respect of alleged offences committed in Dubai. Kindly provide citations/Case law
ousting jurisdiction.
Adv. Ehrlich
Reply

○ 31 kkmittal October 17, 2009 at 6:12 am

Dear Mr Sausa, Pl referWP9crl) No. 415/08,date of decision 04.01.2008 By
justice Dhingra and is available on this site
Reply
 ○ 32 vineeta November 7, 2009 at 10:21 am
pl look at shaleen kabra’s HC order for forcing a crossexamination
Reply

28. 33 arvind November 4, 2009 at 8:35 am

my step mother filed suit against me
Reply

29. 34 Pari November 30, 2009 at 1:45 am

Hi….need urgent help!!!!!!!!!!?
hi
i am 26 and was married to my husband who is in the US on the 10th of may this year in
india according to hindu marriage act. ever since my honeymoon i have been subjected to
mental trauma and was shocked to find out that my husband lies like he breathes he
doesnot have any remorse or conseince and he gets rage attacks. I secretely got his
behaviour evaluated by a famous psychiatrist here based on a few recordings i had of our
conversations and other prrofs and i have been told that my husband is an psychopath.
after i suffered a total mental break down followed by serious panick attack stretch due to
his torments i asked to visit my brother for the first time after my marriage. (my brother
stays in new york) my husband alleged that i am having an incestual relationship withmy
brother and had a rage attack where he almost throttled me. that is when i knew i had a
lost case in my hand and got tremendously scared about my safety.
I came to my brother’s place and i am here since jully 16th. since then he has resorted to
threats… cumpulsive stalking and abusive mails and messeges not only to me but my
brother and my family and my extended family too!!!
He has removed all my jeweleries and all my stuffs and refuses to return them.
I just want to end this relationship ASAP in a way that he gets hurt and does not do this to
any other girl.
I want to know what are my options and how to go about it?
i had to get a restraining order against him and i have a D.I.R. at NYPD against him.
he is on L1 visa applying for a green card.
PLZZZZ HELP!!!!!
Additional Details
PS we cant fight this case in the US court of law as we have not been a resident here for
more than 6 months. i wanted legal advise as to go the civil or the criminal way…. i will
be fighting the case in india
Reply
30. 35 kkmittal November 30, 2009 at 7:30 am
dear pari, pl keep all emails inapen drive for taking primt-out. pl file adivorce suit in india
where the marriage took place or wait for the period u complete the stay. keep all the
recordings doctors’s diagnoses in at asafe place lodge police complaint in Usa giving all
the emails as proof of cruelity, read the hindu marriage act on the web and act
accordingly
Reply

31. 36 CA. K.C.Moondra January 14, 2010 at 2:36 am

Is there any judgement of Supreme Court on Sec 2(q) of Domestic Violence Act in which
it was held that males can not be respondent as held by M.P. Highcourt-CA.K.C.Moondra
Reply

32. 37 kkmittal January 14, 2010 at 1:11 pm

Dear all Pl go through the news item pasted below for obtaining information from
Income Tax Deptt in dowry case where parents of the girl demand hefty compensation by
saying thatthe had spent huge amount on I-T info covered under RTI Act .This is from
the tribune chandigarh.
Girja Shankar Kaura
Tribune News Service
New Delhi, January 12
In a ruling which is bound to have large ramifications on tax-payers, the Central
Information Commission (CIC) has ruled that information on income tax is not invasion
of privacy and was valid under the Right to Information (RTI) Act.
The ruling was made by Information Commissioner Sailesh Gandhi on an application
filed by a resident of Delhi, Rakesh Kumar Gupta, seeking all records available with the
I-T Department, including assessment records of all levels with regard to Escorts
Limited. The applicant had also sought information related to then Escorts chief Naresh
Trehan.
Gandhi ruled: “The concept of privacy is a cultural notion related to social norms, and
different societies would look at these differently. Therefore, referring to laws of other
countries to define privacy cannot be considered a valid exercise to constrain the citizen’s
fundamental Right to Information in India”. However, he ruled that as per Section 8 (1)
(b) of the Act, there shall be no obligation to give any citizen, information that has been
expressly forbidden to be published by any court of law or tribunal or the disclosure of
which may constitute contempt of court.
In a move that would also possibly curb tax evasion, he said disclosure of information
would not lead to unwarranted invasion of the privacy of the individual.
Gandhi observed, “Parliament has not codified the right to privacy so far, hence, in
balancing, the Right to Information of Citizens and the individual’s Right to Privacy, the
 Citizen’s Right to Information would be given greater weightage”.
He agreed that the state had no right to invade the privacy of an individual, but pointed
out that that there were some extraordinary situations where the state may be allowed to
invade the privacy of a citizen.
On arguments that revealing the information related to Naresh Trehan was personal, the
CIC said: “Various public authorities in performing their functions routinely ask for
personal information from citizens and this is clearly a public activity. When a person
applies for a job, or gives information about himself as an employee, or asks for a
permission, licence or authorisation, all these are public activities. Also, when a citizen
provides information in discharge of a statutory obligation, this too is a public activity.
dowry.”
Reply

33. 38 vishakha pathak January 25, 2010 at 11:55 am

I would like to know 2 points about DV cases:
1. Usually how long case will be in court. As per law it should be finished in 2 months.
2. What are procedural steps in these cases.
As far as we know it is:
notice is sent to respondents.
respondent acknowledges it in court.
lawyer tries to compramise.
If compromise is not possible…respondent files reply.
what is next????
Reply

34. 39 Rakesh February 28, 2010 at 11:25 am

I am suffering from D.V. Act applicant in not my wife and she is not leave in our
domestic relationship and not share household. She is wife of other person please help
me.
Reply

○ 40 rupesh March 31, 2010 at 10:40 am

she has to proove that she shared a common household with you.. can she proove
Reply

○ 41 acmaini September 14, 2010 at 5:28 pm

 Pl. give more elaborate details to come to a conclusion.
Reply

35. 42 rupesh March 31, 2010 at 10:39 am

my file filed a 498a first… but since she had also committed bigamy i have applied for
nullity of marriage…
now she has also applied for DV act .. wat to do
Reply

36. 43 Rishi April 6, 2010 at 10:26 am

Respected Sir,
Greetings……
I am also one of the victim of DV Act, i just want to know that Appeal can be made to
Sessions Court within 30 days from the order of concerned Magistrate, but does this time
frame includes the time of getting certified copy of the order.
Like, MM , New Delhi had passed an impunged order on 20th July 2009 and we had not
received the certifiedc opy of the order on the same day, so my lawyer had applied for the
copy on 22nd July 2009 and we got the copy on 03rd August 2009 and on 01st
September 2009 i had made an appeal in the Hon’ble court of ASJ, Patiala House against
this impunged order. Is this is legally correct, because on 25th Jan. 2010 I had won the
case in the hon’ble court of ASJ, New Delhi but on 26th Feb. 2010 my wife had made the
appeal against the same in Hon’ble High court, Delhi. She had challenged the judgement
made by ASJ and she had written in her appeal that I (her husband) had not filed the
appeal in the respective time frame.
Please provide your inputs…
Thanks a lot – Rishi
Reply

37. 44 kkmittal April 7, 2010 at 7:47 am

Dear sir, The date is counted from the date of copy issued.
Reply

38. 45 kkmittal April 7, 2010 at 7:52 am

Dear sir, Pb Haryana High Court says no case can be registered against woman relatives
of the husband. Pl read the following:-
 Abuse of domestic violence Act brought to HC notice
Tribune News Service
Chandigarh, April 1
Implemented in 2006 for the protection of the fairer sex, the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act has apparently turned unfair for women.
In a clear-cut departure from the intended purpose of safeguarding the interest of women
in general and housewives in particular, the provisions of the Act are being – on the face
of it – misused to proceed against women. In one such case, a woman lodged a complaint
against four of her women relatives, even though the law reportedly prohibits initiation of
proceedings against the same gender.
Bringing the alleged violation of the norms to the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s
notice, Manjit Kaur of Sangrur and three others urged the Bench to quash the complaint
dated January 20, 2009. The complaint, under Section 12 of the Act, is currently pending
before Patiala judicial magistrate first class.
One of the petitioners is complainant Pooja Rani’s mother-in-law, while the other
petitioners are her sister-in-laws.
As the matter came up for hearing, Justice Nirmaljit Kaur in her order observed the
petitioners were women; and had been summoned under the Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Act, 2005. As per Section 2 (q), complaint for offence under the Act
can be filed only against “adult male persons”, and not against women.
Justice Nirmaljit Kaur also took note of the fact that the petitioners were placing reliance
on the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Ajay Kant versus Alka
Sharma. Issuing notice of motion on the petition, Justice Nirmaljit Kaur also directed stay
on further proceedings as far as the “present petitioners” were concerned. Before parting
with the order, Justice Nirmaljit Kaur also fixed May 27 as the next date of hearing in the
case.
Reply

39. 46 Rishi May 14, 2010 at 10:25 am

Hi,
Greetings…..
I have filed an application there in the high court for seeking permissin to travel abroad
for doing the job.
But, I have some confusion, please clarify the same -
1. Whether High court will send a notice to my wife for her presence on the day of
hearing of my application ?( I want to ask that whether to get permission to go overseas
my wife’s permission is necessary?)
2. Once I will for abroad, then on my behalf POA (Power Of Attorney) will work out and
3. Do I need to share the details of my working location with my wife (Is it mandatory to
show her the offer letter)?
I shall be thankful to you if you can kindly assist me about these points….
 Best Regards,
Rishi Kapur
Reply

40. 47 Rishi May 14, 2010 at 10:25 am

Hi,
Greetings…..
I have filed an application there in the high court for seeking permissin to travel abroad
for doing the job.
But, I have some confusion, please clarify the same -
1. Whether High court will send a notice to my wife for her presence on the day of
hearing of my application ?( I want to ask that whether to get permission to go overseas
my wife’s permission is necessary?)
2. Once I will for abroad, then on my behalf POA (Power Of Attorney) will work out and
3. Do I need to share the details of my working location with my wife (Is it mandatory to
show her the offer letter)?
I shall be thankful to you if you can kindly assist me about these points….
Best Regards,
Rishi Kapur
Reply

41. 48 Rishi May 14, 2010 at 10:28 am

Hi,
I have another question –
I had filed a divorce petition against my wife under section 13(i-q) and yesterday during
reconcillation session, she had given her decision to the judge that she is not ready to stay
with me and wants a divorce.
Now, what will be the next move from the judge’s end.
I have filed a divorce petition in Faridabad court as i am living in Faridabad (Haryana)
and she is putting up in New Delhi. I had filed the petition on the grounds of cruelty
(sexual Harrasment by my wife with me).
Please advice.
Thanks & Regards,
Rishi Kapur
Reply
42. 49 Ravi July 5, 2010 at 8:36 pm
Sir,
My family(Myself Father and Mother ) were arrested on May 5 2010 based on 498A
false petition filed by my wife and we are in bail now. During the 498A case the police
people did counselling and she demanded 10 Lakhs security deposit on her to withdraw
the case , but we did not agree to that condition and got arrested and we are in bail now,
she now again filed DV act 2005 case on me.please guide me what should i do now to
rescue myself and my Family from this continuous false petitions filled by her.
Reply

○ 50 n. sridhar reddy August 14, 2010 at 5:16 pm

hello sir just do one thing go for qush for ur mother and father in the higer court
while filing the qush in 498a same time you file qush in your d.v case also but this
you will get some realf may b that ur mother and father will taken out from the
cases
Reply

43. 51 ravi shukla July 6, 2010 at 11:23 am

Dear sir,
my name is ravi shukla i m from kolkata, my wife complaint against of me with
complaint letter i will try to sale her and her daughter at place of bihar and she is not
living with me last 1 and half month.plz help me and advise to me.what i do now…..this
is the totaly false….
Reply

44. 52 chamnjit kaur July 26, 2010 at 2:36 pm

I own a joint property with my 4 brothers at chandigarh.
the partition is duly registered in equal ratio of 20%.My husband who is in service was
transfered to Chandigarh in July 2008 and since then we have been staying in our
chandigarh with the brothers very often while retaining our earlier house at Ludhiana in
Punjab.The house was was occupied earlier by my 3 brothers,now one of the brothers
with whom we(I & my husband)were staying has started harassing me fearing that I may
stake a claim to my share in the property,I have reduced staying at my house fearing
violence from there end and my husband also prefers to reach back to Ludhiana where we
also have our house,after working at Chandigarh which is his workplace.
Can I seek protection under the Domestic Violence Act.2005
 Regards
Babber
Reply

45. 53 rajit October 1, 2010 at 11:09 am

Hello,
My sister in law is threatning all of us (my aged parent, my brother and my wife) in the
family that she will file a case against us on domestic violence act.
What is your advice as to how we can handle this.
regards
rajit
Reply

46. 54 krishankmittal October 1, 2010 at 11:36 am

Make recording of her misbehavear by spy cemara without telling anybody everyday.
Reply

47. 55 Roshan Saini October 8, 2010 at 4:48 pm

@ Ranjit
Let her file the case, dont worry, its a civil nature type case, no one needs to appear
personally. Lawyer can appear on behalf of respondents
In any case, the court gives U chance of hearing and then wud proceed
thanx
roshan saini
advocate
9312210067
Reply

48. 56 Roshan Saini October 8, 2010 at 4:51 pm

@ Camanjit Kaur
Sorry chamanjit
DVA is not your remedy,
Approach civil court for suit for partition and permanent injunction
 Thanx
Roshan Saini
Advocate
9312210067
lawyersaini@yahoo.com
Reply

49. 57 k hazra December 14, 2010 at 4:51 am

wheather d.v. cases would continue with g.r. or c.r. case analogasly
Reply

50. 58 k hazra December 14, 2010 at 5:00 am

wheather the trial of p.w.d.v. case would be go on with c.r. or g.r. cases
analogasly.so.request you explain with court rulling
Reply

51. 59 k hazra December 14, 2010 at 5:05 am

wheather trial of pwdv case would go on along with c.r or g. r. cases analogasly.please
send court rulling.
Reply

52. 60 SHREE December 31, 2010 at 8:20 pm

GR8 WK
Reply

53. 61 desai swati January 15, 2011 at 9:25 am

sir,
my husband, brother in law & sister in law had inherited 3 rented(paghdi) properties, one
residential & 2 commercial properties after the demise of my father in law in november
2008.My mother in law passsed away in 2004. In the residential property my brother in
law with his wife was residing at the time of the demise of my father in law due to space
crunch we were residing somewhere else. we were residing in the said flat till the death
of my mother in law i.e till 2004and the flat was in her name.Of the 2 commercial
properties the bigger one admeasuring 340sq.feet my brother in law was carrying
 business with my father in law. In the other commercial property my husband is carrying
business independantly since last 20years.A mutual family agreement deed was drawn
and it was decided to sell of all the 3 properties and the sale proceeds be equally devided
amongst the 3 siblings equally in August 2009. In October 2009 the residential property
was sold and the proceedings were equally devided amongst the 3 siblings. In May 2010
my brother in law’s wife filed domestic violence case against my husband, me, my
mother and my sister in law. She has falsely alleged that after my father in law’s demise
we stayed with them for 12 days and mentally and physically tortured her, her husband
and her children and made the family agreement forcefully and was made to sell the flat
forcefully. Now she is asking compensation of 15 lacs from all four of us and also asking
interim relief. THearing shall start most probably from next month.Please guide me.
thanks
swati
Reply

54. 62 Ranjitha February 2, 2011 at 2:15 pm

i have an urgent query-
is a case filed under the protection of women against domestic violence act 2005 a civit
case or a criminal case?
does the husband have to personally appear in court? everytime there is a hearing?
what are the counter cases that the husband and his family can do to the wife and her
family? Pls let me know whatever you have heard of so that i can take some pre-emptive
action as I have filed a domestic violence case against my husband but fear that they will
only do counter cases on me to harass me further.
Thanks,
Ranjitha
Reply

55. 63 Carlisle Collins February 5, 2011 at 4:38 pm

ILLEGAL ‘LAWS’ – Food For Thought:
Our ‘learned’ legislators responsible for the recent, ‘politically correct’ flurry of gender
biased laws should take a good look at the UNITED NATIONS STANDARDS AND
NORMS IN CRIME PREVENTION AND CRIMINAL JUSTICE particularly at the
definition of “Victims of Crime”. See Link
http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/justice-and-prison-reform/compendium.html
“1. “Victims” means persons who, individually or collectively, have suffered harm,
including physical or mental injury, emotional suffering, economic loss or substantial
impairment of their fundamental rights, through acts or omissions that are in violation of
criminal laws operative within Member States, including those laws proscribing criminal
abuse of power.
2. A person may be considered a victim, under this Declaration, regardless of whether the
 perpetrator is identified, apprehended, prosecuted or convicted and regardless of the
familial relationship between the perpetrator and the victim. The term “victim” also
includes, where appropriate, the immediate family or dependents of the direct victim and
persons who have suffered harm in intervening to assist victims in distress or to prevent
victimization.
3. The provisions contained herein SHALL BE APPLICABLE TO ALL, WITHOUT
DISTINCTION OF ANY KIND, SUCH AS RACE, COLOR, SEX, AGE, LANGUAGE,
RELIGION, NATIONALITY, POLITICAL OR OTHER OPINION, CULTURAL
BELIEFS OR PRACTICES, PROPERTY, BIRTH OR FAMILY STATUS, ETHNIC OR
SOCIAL ORIGIN, AND DISABILITY.” (Emphasis, mine).
So, are discriminatory ‘laws’ such as our DV scams, 498a charades, etc., indeed legal???
Reply

56. 64 politepolite February 9, 2011 at 2:57 pm

I am married since past 2+ yrs. In Oct 2010, my wife delivered a baby girl. Since
marriage I am facing ego issues, differences of opinions from my wife, but I have always
ignored it as I wanted to save my marriage. But now my wife has left my home, saying
that she is not well. She did hava a problem of VERTIGO. This happened 20+ days back.
2 days ago her dad called my dad & told hims that my wife will not return home, means
she will not return to my home. There were no reasons given, nor was an attempt made to
clarify/sort out issues. Just the final verdict fro her father. I am aware of the ‘The
Protection Of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005′. I want advise as to how can I
save myself & my family from any consequences, if she tries to take undue advantage of
DV Act. Should I go and inform my local police about this or file a safety application
against my wife using DV Act.
Kindly guide. Thanks
Polite-polite.
Navi Mumbai.
Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Top of Form

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Name *

Email *

Website
Comment
You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title="">
<acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <pre> <del
datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Post Comment 1069 0

1298708452

Notify me of follow-up comments via email.

Notify me of site updates

comment-form-te

f3183cd88b

Bottom of Form

« Justice Kailash Gambhir (Delhi HC) Guidelines On 498A Cases

Justice R Regupathi (Chennai HC) Ends The Abuse Of 498A »

Visitors Since Mar/14/07

• 926,730
Latest Posts
• An Overview Of The American Criminal Justice System
• CrPC Amendments Are In Effect
• Delhi HC Directive To Upload FIRs
• SC On Bail – Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs State Of Maharashtra
• Dismissal From Service Apt Punishment For Corruption: SC
Cluster Map
Click The Links Below For:
The Judgments Of Justice Shiv Narain Dhingra, Delhi HC
The 498A Survival Kit
Judgments To Fight DV Act
Delhi Police: No 498A Arrests Without DCP's Permission
Hyderabad Police: No 498A Arrests Without DCP's Permission
The Final Report Of Film Actor Prashanth's 498A Case
SC /HC Judgments On Divorce/498A/DNA Tests/Bail/DV
News/Articles/Judgments On Child Custody And Parental Abduction
Top of Form

search go

Bottom of Form

RSS Feed: IPC 498A

• An Overview Of The American Criminal Justice System
• CrPC Amendments Are In Effect
• Delhi HC Directive To Upload FIRs
• SC On Bail – Siddharam Satlingappa Mhetre vs State Of Maharashtra
• Dismissal From Service Apt Punishment For Corruption: SC
Live Traffic
Archives

Top Clicks
• ipc498a.files.wordpress.c…
• indiandivorce.blogspot.co…
• ipc498a.files.wordpress.c…
• ipc498a.files.wordpress.c…
• ipc498a.files.wordpress.c…
• ipc498a.files.wordpress.c…
• ipc498a.files.wordpress.c…
• ipc498a.files.wordpress.c…
• ipc498a.files.wordpress.c…
• ipc498a.files.wordpress.c…
Recent Comments
Amit Singhal on SC Judgement On AB (Full)
 nityanand jha on Magna Carta, Habeas Corpus And…

Rajat on The Judgments Of Justice Shiv …

Rajat on Justice Kailash Gambhir (Delhi…

amrit on The Judgments Of Justice Shiv …

amrit on The Judgments Of Justice Shiv …

amrit on The Judgments Of Justice Shiv …

amrit on The Judgments Of Justice Shiv …

amrit on The Judgments Of Justice Shiv …

raj on Grounds For Divorce Under Hind…

Corruption In India
• Association for Democratic Reforms
• Campaign for Judicial Accountability
• Central Information Commission
• Committee To Protect Bloggers
• Good Cop – Bad Cop
• Indian Radical Feminist Propaganda
• PENAL PROVISIONS PERTAINING TO BRIBERY AND CORRUPTION
• Transparency International India
Geopolitical
• Intellibriefs
Judgments
• AP CID Judgments
• Judis Open Archive
• LEGALLIB
• SC Judgment Search
• World Legal Information Institute
Links To Sister Sites
• 498A GIRLS – Indias Most Wanted
• 498A.Org
• Angry Harry
• Blogs Of SIF Members
• Court Verdicts In Dailies
• Days of Tempest – The Liam Magill Story
• Gender Human Rights Society
• Kharak Singhs Blog
• Law and Other Things
• Legal Terrorism in India
• Life…is elsewhere, not here: Rizwanur Rehman
• My Nation
• Nita Blog
• PariwarikSuraksha
• Paternity Fraud in Australia
• Protect Indian Family
• Ramraj Env
• Sandeep's Blog
• Sangabalya
• Save Indian Family Foundation
• SIF Times
• Vaghela SV
Misc
• Shekhar Kapoors’ Blog
State Police Websites
• AP CID Journals
• Delhi Police
 • Gurgaon Police
Some Interesting Stats On Arrests Of Women
In 1930, the British govt arrested 17,000 women for their involvement in the Dandi Yatra (Salt
March). During 1937 to 1947 (10 Years), they arrested 5,000 women involved in the freedom
struggle. From 2004 to 2006, the govt of India arrested 90,000 women of all ages under 498A.
On the average, 27,000 women per year are being arrested under this flawed law. These are stats
from the NCRB.

Propublica: Publc Interest Journalism

• The Latest on Crackdowns in the Mideast and U.S. Responses
• Hydrofracked? One Man’s Mystery Leads to a Backlash Against Natural Gas Drilling
• Education Dept. Pledges to Overhaul Dysfunctional Disability Review Program
• California County Opens Review Into Autopsies by Doctor With Checkered Past
• Invoking ‘State Secrets’: Still the Status Quo?
• Podcast: ProPublica Interns Roundtable
• How I Passed My U.S. Citizenship Test: By Keeping the Right Answers to Myself
• As U.S. Rebuilt Ties With Libya, Human Rights Concerns Took a Back Seat
• Cheat Sheet: What’s Really Going On With Wisconsin’s Budget
• After Spending on Dubious Technology, U.S. Invokes State Secrets to Keep Details
Hushed
Copyright Notice:
The content of this blog is copyrighted. You are required to obtain prior permission before
locally hosting or reproducing online or in print, any or part of the content. You are welcome to

directly link to the content from your site.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative

Works 3.0 Unported License.
Disclaimer:
The family of the writer was tortured by the Indian Police in an attempt to extort a huge amount
of money by holding them hostage. They were held in custody for over a week. The police, in
cahoots with the magistrate and the PP, could do this due to the ridiculous allegations made by
his embittered ex-wife. She filed the 498A years after the last time he and his family had last
seen her. This blog was started to combat the abuses perpetrated in the name of laws meant to
protect women, such as S.498A of IPC. It is the corrupt officers of the Indian police force who
are the main beneficiaries of this extortion racket. In a sense, this blog is a component in the
larger battle against corruption in India. This is about raising the awareness of Indian citizens
about their rights so that the police can be shown their place and the law can take the course it is
supposed to take. The content of this blog is not legal advice, nor is the intent to slander or
defame anyone or any institution, but constitute a set of opinions and observations, based on
what has been read or heard in the media or on the Internet and other sources of information.
What ever action or umbrage you may take or not take, is your choice and at your risk. The
writer disclaims all liabilities, legal or otherwise, that may arise for any reason whatsoever.
Get Adobe Acrobat Reader
You will need adobe acrobat to read most of the documents. Please download adobe acrobat
reader. Get Adobe Acrobat For Your System

August 2008
M T W T F S S
« Jul Sep »
1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31

Meta
• Register
• Log in
• Entries RSS
• Comments RSS
• WordPress.com

Theme: K2-lite by k2 team. Get a blog at WordPress.com

RSS Entries and RSS Comments