LawforAll

▼
Showing posts with label dvc. Show all posts
Showing posts with label dvc. Show all posts
Monday, January 7, 2013

"27. Jurisdiction:- (1) The court of Judicial Magistrate of the first class or the Metropolitan Magistrate, as the case may be, within the local limits of which- (a) the person aggrieved permanently or temporarily resides or carries on business or is employed; or (b) the respondent resides or carries on business or is employed; or (c) the cause of action has arisen, shall be the competent court to grant a protection order and other orders under this Act and to try offences under this Act. (2) Any order made under this Act shall be enforceable throughout India."= A close reading of the above provision would make it abundantly clear that for filing a petition seeking protection orders, it is not necessary that there should have arisen a cause of action or atleast a part of cause of action, within the territorial jurisdiction of the Judicial Magistrate concerned. It is enough if the aggrieved person permanently or temporarily resides or carries on business or is employed within the local limits of the said Judicial Magistrate.

›
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED 17.07.2012 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.NAGAMUTHU Crl.OP No.14609 of 2012 an...
Sunday, January 6, 2013

This court is not inclined to entertain the writ petition at the instance of the petitioner as she was neither a party to the proceedings before the learned Magistrate, Tambaram nor she has locus standi to file such a writ petition.The marriage between the second respondent and her husband was not dissolved so far.As against the said order, an appeal lies to the Sessions Court in terms of the Section 29 of the Act. Hence the petitioner if aggrieved she should file an appropriate application before the Sessions Court after getting the leave of the court to challenge the same. Section 17(2) itself says that an aggrieved person cannot be evicted or excluded from the shared household or any part of it by any person except the procedure established by law. Therefore, it is for the petitioner to establish her title before the appropriate court before seeking for any relief against the cancellation of the shared housedhold order given by the learned magistrate. There is no case made out by the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition will stand dismissed. No costs.

›
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED :  10.04.2012 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU W.P.No.9665 of 2012 Reh...
Wednesday, January 2, 2013

The revision petitioner (V.Krishnaveni) is the mother of Rajkumar, the first respondent herein.-Claiming that she was living in the residential house bearing door No.6, Nagalingam Pillai Street, Thiruchuli Road, Aruppukkottai, Virudhunagar District which was purchased by her husband in 1991; that her husband died on 22.02.2008 and that the first respondent, who got the property by virtue of a gift deed executed by her husband failed to maintain the revision petitioner and on the other hand, has driven her out of the said house, preferred a complaint with the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Aruppukottai to give her police protection to stay in the above said house. = the revision petitioner had not made out any prima facie case for any of the reliefs sought for under sections 18, 19 and 23 of the protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005.=subsequent to the death of the husband of the revision petitioner and also referred to the fact that the revision petitioner chose to reside with her first son at Madurai, who got a sum of Rs.17,25,000/- from the first respondent for not claiming any right in the property mentioned above and that the said property had been never a house shared by the petitioner and the first respondent.

›
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 22/02/2012 CORAM THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR Crl.R.C.(MD)No.553 o...
Thursday, September 13, 2012

DVC retrospective - None of the reliefs claimed in D.V.C. No.8 of 2011 by the 2nd respondent can be called crimes. Though, the Act empowers a Magistrate to entertain the complaint of an aggrieved person under Section 12 of the Act and makes it incumbent on the Magistrate to make enquiry of the same under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, reliefs under Sections 18 to 22 of the Act are in the nature of civil reliefs only. It is only violation of order of the Magistrate which becomes an offence under Section 31 of the Act and which attracts penalty for breach of protection order by any of the respondents. Similarly Section 33 of the Act provides for penalty for discharging duty by Protection Officer. Except under Sections 31 and 33 of the Act which occur in Chapter V, all the reliefs claimed under Chapter IV of the Act are not offences and enquiry of rights of the aggrieved person under Sections 18 to 22 of the Act cannot be termed as trial of a criminal case.Further, this Court in Sikakollu Chandra Mohan v Sikakollu Saraswati Devi by order dated 06.07.2010 in Crl.R.C.No.1093 of 2010 held that it cannot be said that provisions of the Act cannot be invoked in case separation between the parties was prior to the Act coming into force. Therefore, contention of the petitioners fails. 3. In the result, the Criminal Petition is dismissed.

›
HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SAMUDRALA GOVINDARAJULU             CRIMINAL PETITION No.5921 of 2012   13.08.2012 Gundu Chandrasekhar and o...
Monday, September 10, 2012

the daughter of the respondent i.e the first wife of the husband of the complainant died, thereby the first marriage of the husband of the complainant does not exist now. Thus, the complainant is altogether a different person, who got no relationship with the respondent by virtue of any marriage otherwise or by consanguinity or by being a member of a joint family within the meaning of section 2(f). What is envisaged under the proviso in Section 2(q), which section defines what is meant by 'respondent' that an aggrieved wife or female living in a relationship in the nature of a marriage may file a complaint against a relative of the husband or male person is well within the ambit of the definition of domestic relationship only. In other words, when domestic relationship as defined in Section 2(q) is one of the conditions to file an application under the Act, a relative of the husband or male person must be one who comes within the ambit of that definition which excludes a relative like the respondent in this case.

›
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE G.KRISHNA MOHAN REDDY           CRIMINAL PETITION No.4140 of 2010   2-8-2012 Nagamuthula Kondaiah Stat...