Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
In the present case, the allegation against the respondent (‘man’) was of domestic violence, while he lived in a shared household with the petitioner (‘woman’) for almost seven years in a domestic relationship, if not as a married couple but at least as a couple in the nature of marriage.
“The concept of right to life and personal liberty guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India includes the right to live with dignity and the petitioners by running away from their parental home is not only bringing bad name to the family but also is violating the right of the parents to live with dignity and honour.”
A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from all High Courts this week.
A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from all High Courts this week.
“When the proceedings under the DV Act are found to be an abuse of process of Court, in order to secure the ends of justice and to save the parties being put into a frivolous litigation, the High Court must exercise its power under Section 482 of CrPC or under Section 528 of BNSS, otherwise abuse of process of Court would not be addressed or prevented”.
In the present case, the woman has clearly stated that she was not aware about her partner’s marriage and his children. Further, the Trial Court as well as the Appellate Court has also stated that the relationship between them, fell under the category of domestic relationship.
The power of the High Court under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code is of the widest amplitude, which can be exercised to secure ends of justice, unless barred by specific provision or by implication. Such power can be exercised to prevent unwanted harassment caused to a respondent with the application of rigour of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi: In a matter regarding providing maintenance to wife and children, Ramesh Kumar-1, Principal District & Sessions Judge, expressed that
Delhi High Court: Prateek Jalan, J., addressed the issue of whether visits of sundry family members to the matrimonial home, without permanency
Karnataka High Court: Sreenivas Harish Kumar, J., allowed the petition and directed that there cannot be any proceedings against the petitioner under
Calcutta High Court: Madhumati Mitra, J., dismissed an application filed against the order of the Sessions Judge whereby he upheld the order passed
Calcutta High Court: Madhumati Mitra, J. dismissed an application filed by the petitioner to quash the order of the Additional Sessions Judge whereby
Bombay High Court: M.G. Giratkar, J. refused to interfere with an order of the Judicial Magistrate as confirmed by the Sessions Judge, whereby
Bombay High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Mangesh S. Patil, J., dismissed a criminal revision petition filed against the decision
Jammu and Kashmir High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Janak Raj Kotwal, J. quashed the proceedings pending against the petitioners