Tag Archives: DV case NO maintenance or residence order

43 DV cases for this season ! 43 cases where husband and in laws won and / or maintenance was denied to wife !!

I have been posting 100s of Judgments / orders on 498a, DV, Sec 125 CrPC and many related areas (please see this blog and you will see most of these). Recently I have started categorizing them for easy reference and benefit of readers. Some ago I had posted a summary of bail orders and yet another on 498a cases quashed by courts.

Here is an attempt to collate DV cases, where the husbands / in laws won.

Since money is the main target of most fake matrimonial litigation, DV along with Sec 24, 25 HMA and similar sections of SMA etc are now becoming the chosen tools for women to extract max moolah. Husbands and families need to watch out and protect themselves
I hope this compendium helps
Cases are listed with a # against each just for a count in this blog. these were also shared on other social media. This # series does not have any specific order . I’m only hoping I’ll have a chance to add more victories to these

May I request readers to liberally share these and add fresh cases as comments 

 

DV Series # 43 : DV 15yrs aftr separation!! MM grants maint etc. Husband runs 2 HC; HC quashes whole tamasha ! married on 8.5.1990 ; son born on 24.2.1991 ; separate since 1992;  divorce case between couple dismissed by lower courts; wife files DV in 2007 !!;  magistrate provides maintenance, money in lieu of residence etc etc ; husband runs to HC;  HC thankfully quashes the case !!! http://wp.me/p7s7-1hm

DV Series#42 : NO MAINTENANCE to wife under Domestic Violence Act as she has sufficient income and concealed it !! Practicing Gynecologist stops declaring full income on income tax returns; harasses ex hubby in various courts / cases ; demands monthly maintenance even though she earns more than ex-husband !! Completely denined maintenance http://wp.me/p7s7-u0

DV Series#41 : Wife earning equal to husband denied maintenance in DV. Sessions & Delhi HC ALSO deny maintenance! Residence also denied as wife getting HRA from employment! http://wp.me/p7s7-2dO

 

DVSeries#40: Poor Taxi Driver’s wife tries to get his mother’s house using DV ! Looses case on appeal. Wife is ordered to live with driver in an alternate acco. Without going there she tries other stunts and looses again !! https://t.co/7sPcN3008x

 

DvSeries#39 : DV just 2 harass husband + inlaws & waste time of court. Wife never came to court !! DV dismissed. JM Chandigarh https://t.co/CD6H8E2ZCd

 

DVSeries#38: Initial Proceedings in DV act are CIVIL in nature. Magistrate not issue summons u/s 61 Cr.P.C. treating respondents as accused ! Magistrate to tread carefully http://wp.me/p7s7-1dM

 

DVSeries#37: DV cases can be quashed u/s 482 CrPC. Gujarat HC division bench judgement – Nov 2015 http://wp.me/p7s7-1T6

 

DVSeries#36: Well educated employed wife resigning on own NOT entitled 2 maintenance! Only Kid gets maintenancec. Delhi HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1Bv

 

DVSeries#35: Visiting in laws 5days is NOT dom relation so NO DV ! Only violence by person living n shared household is DV! Delhi Sessions court discharges all in laws http://wp.me/p7s7-21n

 

DVSeries#34: Wife files DV on 6 inlaws 9 yrs AFTER husband’s death! DV, Cruelty NOT proven, Looses case ! Delhi MM court http://wp.me/p7s7-20C

 

DVSeries#33:LOVE match 2 court! DV b4 marriage! 498a 307 323 AFTR marage. Sis in law runs 4 quash http://wp.me/p7s7-1PW

 

DvSeries#32: No maintenance to erring women ! DV case won by husband on strong arguments & facts. http://wp.me/p7s7-1MF

 

DVSeries#31: Beaten &evicted elderly M in law WINS DV. Sessions orders lower court 2 grant relief http://wp.me/p7s7-1PS

 

DVSeries#30: India becoming land of fake DV? Madras HC dismisses fake DV 2 settle property dispute http://wp.me/p7s7-1OV

 

DVSeries#29: Your Honour I doNOT know her, she’s NOT my wife How could I beat her or my brother mollest? what DV http://wp.me/p7s7-1Pl

 

DVSeries#28: NON disclosure of pre cognizance DV NOT dis entitle you from GOVT JOB ! Delhi HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1OL

 

DVSeries#27: Sister married 40yrs ago files DV on brothers 4 property !! MP HC decrees NO DV http://wp.me/p7s7-1Mt

 

DVSeries#26: Wife earning equal 2 hubby NOT get maint NOR residence under DV! Delhi Sessions Court http://wp.me/p7s7-1Mq

 

DVSeries#25: WIFE already making moolah in sec 125 CrPC cannot make MORE moolah using DV !! Del HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1p0

 

DVSeries#24: DV Act does not create any additional right to claim maintenance !! Del HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1q6

 

DVSeries#23: Raj HC : Wife who leaves 3yr old kid & goes away, files 498a DV Looses kid’s custody! http://wp.me/p7s7-1CG

 

DVSeries#22: IF paying maint in DV seek reducn of S 125 maintenance! MP HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1F9

 

DVSeries#21: Rare order (not the norm!) : NO arrest for NON payment of DV maintenance. Kerala HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1Fm

 

DVSeries#20: No DV cases on relatives (say inlaws) who are NOT in domestic relationship! Andhra HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1Ww

 

DVSeries#19: DV case on elders, relatives etc quashed. Only husband to fight ! Madras HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1IF

 

DvSeries#18: Max 1 month arrst 4 maint arrears. No DV maint enhance by session court. Karnat HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1Fn

 

DVSeries#17: Gulf based NRI earng 65K pm 2 pay ONLY 6K to wife: Kerala DV case with LOW LOW maint http://wp.me/p7s7-1Fj

 

DVSeries#16: Husband can sell his house when he wants!! DV can’t stop that. Kerala HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1Fl

 

DVSeries#15:IF Wife can’t prove DV, children ALSO NOT entitled maintenance under DV. Bombay HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1wz

 

DVSeries#14:Need Cent Govt permission 2 investigate offence outside India Good case 4 DV, Dowry NRI http://wp.me/p7s7-1zE

 

DVSeries#13: 24 HMA Intr. maint reduced bcaz wife already getting DV maintenance !! MP, HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1Bh

 

DVSeries#12: BOM HC : NO DV if couple not living 2gther not sharing h hold! NO DV 5yrs aftr dvorce! http://wp.me/p7s7-1yS

 

DVSeries#11:Wife Can’t return frm abroad &file DV 1yr aftr sepraton! Not in domst rel.ship: Bom HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1yG

 

DVSeries#10: Personal appearance NOT essential in DV case : Kerala HC : appear thru counsel http://wp.me/p7s7-1wI

 

DVSeries#09: Wife tries DV aftr mutual dvorc &delay! LOOSES @SC. SC supports 1yr timelimit for DV http://wp.me/p7s7-1×8

 

DVSeries#08: DV on inlaws 5yrs aftr huby death! Wife wants piece of house Dhingra ji send her back! http://wp.me/p7s7-1xu

 

DVSeries#07:SuprmCourt: If DV filed, police 2 make enqury frm family, neighbours,freinds, b4 case! http://wp.me/p7s7-1wJ

 

DVSeries#06: Wife’s 172 days delay in filing revision for DV case NOT accepted by Madras HC http://wp.me/p7s7-1×7

 

DVSeries#05: Womn caught lying in cross exam about DV & dowry looses case gets NO Money! Delhi MM http://wp.me/p7s7-1MV

 

DVSeries#04: Dghtr in law forcefully enter FIL’s house & tries DV residnce. Looses completely. http://wp.me/p7s7-1Nq

 

DVSeries#03: Live-in woman claims rape, DV, cheating, bigamy etc 9yrs later! P&H HC throws her out http://wp.me/p7s7-1Nt

 

DVSeries#02: Every failed marriage NOT DV! Fake DV case after 498a quashed by Del HC. http://wp.me/p7s7-1NG

 

DVSeries#01: Serial case filing wife’s DV quashed by Karnatk HC “nothing but abuse of process of Court” http://wp.me/p7s7-1Qj

 

Woman caught in cross examination lying about DV & dowry Looses case, gets NO Money! Delhi MM court

A classic case that highlight how men should fight back, do a good cross examination and elicit facts. Wife who originally claims that she is unemployed and needs MOOLAH, admits in cross that she is earning 3000. Also the same wife who claims that there was a dowry demand, later contradicts it saying husband was demanding what she earned out of stitching

Excerpts
*************************

Originally the woman claims “… that her in laws were money minded and started demanding Rs. 50,000/­ in cash and compelled her to bring the same from her parents for the construction of upper floor of the house;….”

Later on it transpires during cross examination that :

“….PW1 has further deposed that she is a housewife having no source of income or any movable property in her name whereas, she is admitting in her cross­examination that she used to do stitching at home and able to earn around Rs. 3000/­ to 4000/­ per month. She is further admitting in her cross­examination that her husband used to beat her for his demand of Rs. 50,000/­ which she had earned from doing the stitching work before marriage. This has exposed her blatant lie and cannot be considered as reliable witness. Petitioner/PW1 has made allegations of domestic violence in the form of economic violence against respondents but she has contradicted her own allegations in her evidence.

So the Honourable court concludes :

13. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I conclude that all the allegations made by the petitioner against respondents stands falsified and she fails to prove infliction of domestic violence upon her by the respondents…..”

*****************************disclaimer**********************************
This judgment and other similar judgments posted on this blog was / were collected from Judis nic in website and / or other websites of Govt. of India or other internet web sites like worldlii or indiankanoon or High court websites. Some notes are made by Vinayak. Should you find the dictum in this judgment or the judgment itself repealed or amended or would like to make improvements or comments, please post a comment on the comment section of the blog and if you are reading this on tumblr please post responses as comments at vinayak.wordpress.com . Vinayak is NOT a lawyer and nothing in this blog and/or site and/or file should be considered as legal advise.
*******************************************************************************
CASE FROM JUDIS / INDIAN KANOON WEB SITE with necessary Emphasis, Re formatting
*******************************************************************************

IN THE COURT OF MS. GEETANJALI: MM­1: MAHILA COURT: EAST : KARKARDOMA COURTS: DELHI

V­203/12

ID Number R0279552012

Smt. Alka
W/o Shri Prince
D/o Shri Ram Kumar
R/o H. No. 2­A/76, Geeta Colony,
Delhi                                                       …. Complainant

                             VERSUS

1.     Sh. Prince (husband)
2.     Sh. Bharat Bhushan (father in law)
3.     Sh. Amit Bansal (brother in law/jeth)
    S/o Shri Bharat Bhushan
    Both R/o H. No.195, Block No.5,
    Nand Nagari, Delhi            ….. Respondents

 JUDGMENT

1. The present complaint is filed by the complainant under section 12 of Domestic Violence Act, 2005 against her husband and other in laws.

2. The relationship of the complainant with respondents is as follows:

(i)Respondent Prince­ Husband
(ii)Respondent Bharat Bhusan­ Father in law
(iii)Respondent Amit Bansal­ Jeth

3. The brief facts of the case are as follows:
The petitioner was married with the respondent no.1 Prince on 03.06.2010 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies in which her parents had spent around Rs. 10 lacs and given all the dowry/istridhan; that her in laws were money minded and started demanding Rs. 50,000/­ in cash and compelled her to bring the same from her parents for the construction of upper floor of the house; that her father in law keeps bad eye on her and misbehaved with her after drinking liquor; that she stayed in her matrimonial house for three months and was brought to her parental house by her brother on the occasion of Rakshabandhan and since than she is residing with her parents and nobody came to take her back; that she was harassed, tortured and humiliated by the respondent for dowry but she tolerated the same in hope of better future but all in vain; that presently she is dependent upon the mercy of her parents and respondent no.1 has not made any effort to maintain her; that she is a housewife having no source of income or any movable property in her name; that respondent no.1 is having a house bearing no. A10/109­C, Gali No.10, Bhajanpura built upto third floor, a house at Punjab given on rent, 04 TSRs out of which 02 bearing number DL 2393 and DL 0216 and motorcycle and his monthly income is more than Rs. 1 lac.

4. In view of the above facts and allegations, the following prayers have been prayed by the applicant:

i)Protection order ;
ii)Residence order;
iii)Monetary relief and
iv) Compensation and damages.

5. In response to the summons of the petition, the respondents have filed a detailed reply denying all the allegations alleged against him in the petition taking preliminary objections to the effect that petitioner has herself left her matrimonial house and withdrawn from the society of the respondents taking all her valuables and costly clothes; that they had tried to bring her back but she has flatly refused to join the company of respondent no.1; that petitioner is a skilled lady and doing stitching/tailoring work at her house earning Rs. 10,000 per month; that respondent no.1 is not doing any work and is totally dependent upon the mercy of his old aged father; that respondent no.1 is not doing any work since he is habitual drunkard and due to his bad habit he has been admitted in Nasha Mukti Kendra for 14 days. Hence the present petitioner be dismissed. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

6. Vide order dated 24.05.2013 petitioner was granted interim maintenance @ Rs. 2400/­ per month. Thereafter the matter was listed for petitioner’s evidence.

7. In petitioner’s evidence, petitioner has examined herself as PW1 and she has tendered her evidence by way of affidavit wherein she has reiterated and reaffirmed the same facts as stated by her in the petition. She has been cross examined by the respondents. Thereafter matter was listed for respondent’s evidence.

8. In respondents’ evidence, respondent no.1 has examined himself as RW1 and has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit wherein he has reiterated and reaffirmed the same facts as stated by him in his reply. He has been cross examined by the petitioner. Thereafter matter was listed for final arguments.

9. I have heard the ld. Counsel for the parties and perused the court record.

10. The present proceedings are under Domestic Violence Act, therefore, first question that arises for determination is as to whether the applicant is an aggrieved person. Aggrieved person is defined in Section 2(a) of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act which read as under:­ “Aggrieved persons means any women who is, or has been, in a domestic relationship with the respondent and who alleges to have been subjected to any act of domestic violence by the respondents.” A perusal of this section shows that two ingredients need to be satisfied before a person can be said to be aggrieved person:

i)Aggrieved person must be in domestic relationship with respondent.

ii)Aggrieved person must have been subjected to domestic violence which she was in domestic relationship with respondent.

Section 2(f) defines domestic relationship as under:­ “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 as a joint family.

11. It is clear from the perusal of section 2(f) that the aggrieved person must establish that she was in relationship with the respondents by way of blood, adoption or marriage and was residing with the respondents in a shared household. PW1 has stated in her examination in chief that she was married with respondent Prince and after marriage she started residing with the respondents. She has not been cross­examined by respondents on this aspect. It is settled law that if there is no cross­examination of a witness in respect of statement of fact, it will only show admission of the fact. In view of the same, PW1 is able to prove domestic relationship with respondents.

12. Now the point of consideration is whether any domestic violence has been committed upon the petitioner by the respondents or not. PW1 has stated in her examination in chief that that she was married with the respondent no.1 Prince on 03.06.2010 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies in which her parents had spent around Rs. 10 lacs and given all the dowry/istridhan; that her in laws were money minded and started demanding Rs. 50,000/­ in cash and compelled her to bring the same from her parents for the construction of upper floor of the house; that her father in law keeps bad eye on her and misbehaved with her after drinking liquor; that she stayed in her matrimonial house for three months and was brought to her parental house by her brother on the occasion of Rakshabandhan and since then she is residing with her parents and nobody came to take her back; that she was harassed, tortured and humiliated by the respondent for dowry but she tolerated the same in hope of better future but all in vain; that presently she is dependent upon the mercy of her parents and respondent no.1 has not made any effort to maintain her. PW1 has further deposed that she is a housewife having no source of income or any movable property in her name whereas, she is admitting in her cross­examination that she used to do stitching at home and able to earn around Rs. 3000/­ to 4000/­ per month. She is further admitting in her cross­examination that her husband used to beat her for his demand of Rs. 50,000/­ which she had earned from doing the stitching work before marriage. This has exposed her blatant lie and cannot be considered as reliable witness. Petitioner/PW1 has made allegations of domestic violence in the form of economic violence against respondents but she has contradicted her own allegations in her evidence. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

13. In view of the aforesaid discussions, I conclude that all the allegations made by the petitioner against respondents stands falsified and she fails to prove infliction of domestic violence upon her by the respondents.

14. Since PW1 has failed to prove one of the essential ingredients required for the grant of reliefs as enumerated under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 i.e. causal of domestic violence upon her, she is not entitled any relief. In view of the same, present petition is dismissed. File be consigned to record room.

(Announced in the open court on 05/10/2015)

(GEETANJALI) METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE MAHILA COURT KARKARDOMA COURTS: DELHI