udgments To Fight Accusations Under Domestic Violence Act
Published August 16, 2008 498A abuse , 498a judgments , 498A misuse , DV act , Feminism , Kapil Rastogi , Kapil Rastogi Vs Urvashi 170 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 2008Justice 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 WifeSuraj 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 – 2007Swarup 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 2007Sonia 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 CaseAlso, check out Vinayaks blog, link is given below. He has some tips to fight the 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…
View original post 802 more words
Srishaila's Blog 