Tag Archives: DV = moolah !!

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


60000 pm just interim maint !! man runs for revision. court rejects & says file appeal ! How procedure kills men, when women happily milk MOOLAH !!

Husband ASKED 2 pay 60000 pm interim maint goes on revision. Court rejects the revision petition, and says file appeal (procedural hitch)! This case shows why right procedure is important !

DV has become the weapon of choice for women wanting BIG moolah. In this case the husband has been asked to pay Rs 60000 p,m as just interim maintenance!. In my opinion an interim maintenance of Rs 60 thousands is a VERY big sum. The husband is filing a revision against the same. But the Hon. Sessions court says, such a revision does NOT lie and dismisses the revision. Now the husband has to revert with an appeal!

This case highlight why it It’s VERY essential to have the right lawyer, follow the right procedure and fight the case well. IF you are in doubt consult other men’s rights groups.

My heart goes out to men who are milked by such orders ..especially interim maintenance orders where the money is lost EVEN if the main case is won finally !!

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


CASE ID No. 02406R0312702014
CR NO. 44/14

Manik Chopra
S/o Sh. Vinod Chopra
R/o 12/368, DDA Flats,
Kalkaji, New Delhi …………………..Revisionist/Petitioner

Priyanka Chopra
W/o Manik Chopra
D/o Anil Khosla

At present residing at:
Apartment No. 631,
Shiv Kala Apartments,
Plot No. D­19,
Sector ­51, Noida,
Uttar Pradesh ………………………Respondent


Vide this Petition, the revisionist has assailed the order dated 05.11.2014 passed by Ld. MM thereby directing the revisionist to pay Rs. 60,000/­ per month as interim maintenance to the respondent/wife till disposal of the Petition filed U/s 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

During the course of arguments, the issue of maintainability of the present Revision was raised, however, Counsel for the revisionist has contended that the revision filed against the order of interim maintenance was duly maintainable and there was no need for the revisionist/husband to prefer an Appeal against the Order as the Order so passed was unjust and bad in law.

Counsel for respondent however contended that in view of the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the revision petition as filed against the Order of interim maintenance was not maintainable. Ld. Counsel has also relied upon the following Judgments:

(i) Arivazhagan Vs M. Uma, Crl R.C. (MD) No. 287 of 2012 and M.P. (MD) No. 1 of 2012 passed by the Hon’ble Madras High Court.

(ii) K. Rajendran Vs Ambikavathy, Criminal Revision Case (MD) No. 482 of 2012 and M.P. (MD) No. 1 of 2012 passed by the Hon’ble Madras High Court.

(iii) Mohd. Akber Yaseen Vs Rizwana Sulthana, LAWS (APH)­2010­7­129 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh.

Before proceeding further, let me discuss the legal provisions applicable in the present scenario.

Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 provides as under:

There shall lie an appeal to the Court of Session within thirty days from the date on which the order made by the Magistrate is served on the aggrieved person or the respondent, as the case may be, whichever is later.

Section 399 Cr. PC provides as under:

Sessions Judge’s powers of revision­ In the case of any proceeding the record of which has been called for by himself, the Sessions Judge may exercise all or any of the powers which may be exercised by the High court under sub­section (1) of section 401.

Further, Section 401 Cr. PC provides as under:

High Court’s powers of Revision:

(1) ………

(2) ………..

(3) ……….

(4) Where under this Code an appeal lies and no appeal is brought, no proceeding by way of revision shall be entertained at the instance of the party who could have appealed.

(5) Where under this Code an appeal lies but an application for revision has been made to the High Court by any person and the High court is satisfied that such application was made under the erroneous belief that no appeal lies thereto and that it is necessary in the interests of justice so to do, the High Court may treat the application for revision as a petition of appeal and deal with the same accordingly.

Chapter IV of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 provides for all the reliefs which an aggrieved person can seek by filing an application before the concerned Magistrate.

Further, Section 29 in the same Chapter specifically provides that there shall lie an appeal to the Court of Sessions against any Order passed by the Ld. Magistrate in the said Chapter.

The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 is a special Act which has been enacted for providing effective protection to the rights of women guaranteed under the Constitution who are victims of violence of any kind occurring within the family and for matters connected there with or incidental thereto. http://evinayak.tumblr.com/ ; https://vinayak.wordpress.com/ ; http://fromvinayak.blogspot.com

There is a specific provision providing for a remedy by way of an Appeal under the Act. There is an effective and alternative remedy available to any aggrieved person to file an Appeal against the Order passed by Ld. MM.

In my considered view against interim Order of maintenance, the remedy lies in preferring Appeal against the Order and the revisional application was not maintainable.

In K. Rajendran Vs Ambikavathy, Criminal Revision Case (MD) No. 482 of 2012 and M.P. (MD) No. 1 of 2012 passed by the Hon’ble Madras High Court, it was observed

“The Revisional jurisdiction of a concerned Court relates to the supervisory jurisdiction of a superior Court. A right of appeal is conferred only by a Statute. It is not itself a necessary part of procedure in an action but, it is the right of a person entering the superior forum invoking its assistance to correct the error committed by the lower forum. Furthermore, Section 372 of Cr. PC enjoins that “no appeal shall lie from any judgment or order of the criminal Court except as provided for by this Court or by any other Law for the time being in force.

As far as the present case is concerned, as against the impugned order dated 21.09.2012 passed in D.V.O.P. No. 29 of 2012, the Revision Petitioners are to prefer only Statutory Appeal as per Section 29 of the Act. It is a viable efficacious, effective and alternative remedy., as opined by this Court. In the instant case, obviously, the Petitioners have not filed any petition seeking alteration, modification or revocation of the order passed by the Learned Judicial Magistrate in D.V.O.P. No. 29 of 2012 dated 21.09.2012 without seeking alteration, modification or revocation of the order so passed in D.V.O.P. No. 29 of 2012 dated 2.09.2012 by the Learned Magistrate and also not filing the Statutory Appeal under Section 29 of the Act, the Petitioners have directly approached this Court by filing the instant Criminal Revision petition under Section 397 and Section 401 of Cr. PC. Only when a Revision is filed as against the judgment or order passed by the Court of Session in Appeal as per Section 29 of the Act, then only, the right of availing the procedural facility of filing the Revision is available to the Petitioners, in the considered opinion of this Court. When a statutory right of filing an Appeal is provided to the Petitioners (as per Section 29 of the Act), then this Court is of the considered view that the Petitioners cannot invoke the Revisional Jurisdiction of this Court under Section 397 read with 401 of Cr. PC.”

Further, in Mohd. Akber Yaseen Vs Rizwana Sulthana, LAWS (APH)­2010­7­129 passed by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, it was observed
“In the case of Domestic Violence cases filed for reliefs under Sections 18 to 23 of the Act, there is no element of criminality involved, much less the domestic violence case is a criminal case as such. Unless the case is filed alleging offences under Sections 31 and 33 of the Act, the entire proceedings in a domestic violence case are purely civil in nature, but entertained by criminal Courts applying procedure enunciated under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Therefore, while issuing notice in domestic violence case filed by respondent nos. 1 to 5, the Magistrate is not expected to apply or exercise his/her mind before issuing notices to the respondents therein. No summonses are issued in a domestic violence case, but only notices are issued. Issuing notices to the respondents in a domestic violence case, in my considered opinion, is not a judicial act but is only a Ministerial act performed by the Magistrate. As against a Ministerial act, no revision is maintainable under Section 397 Cr. PC.

Assuming for a moment for the sake of argument that issuing of notice in a domestic violence case amounts to an order passed by the Magistrate and further a judicial order passed by the Magistrate, even then the revision petition under Section 397 is not maintainable, because any order passed by the Magistrate is appealable under Section 29 of the Act. The petitioners cannot bypass remedy of appeal and approach directly this Court under Section 397 Cr. PC by way of this revision petition. Thus, viewed from any angle, this revision petition is not maintainable in this Court. In the result, the criminal revision petition is dismissed.”

In the result, the Revision Petition is dismissed as not maintainable. It is open to the revisionist to prefer an Appeal as per the provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 in the manner known to the Law and to seek remedy thereof, if he so desires.

The part amount already deposited by the revisionist/husband towards the interim maintenance however may be adjusted in the disbursement in accordance with the Order dated 05.11.2014 passed by Ld. Trial Court.

Revision Petition record be consigned to Record Room.

TCR be sent back to court concerned alongwith copy of this Order.



ON 08.10.2015