along with Protection of
Women from Domestic Violence Rules, 2006 bearing Case No.
DV/190/2021, instituted on 27.07.2021 (CRN No.
HRGR0304050392021), titled ... along with Protection of Women from
Domestic Violence Rules, 2006 bearing Case No. DV/190/2021,
instituted on 27.07.2021 (CRN No. HRGR0304050392021), titled
Sections 9B & 37(2)(C) of the DV Act which is
registered as Domestic Violence Case No. 20/2008. It may be
mentioned here ... First Class Magistrate (Mobile Court),
Eluru and has been renumbered as DV Case No. 29/2012. In this
case, respondent no. 1 has leveled various
application for interim maintenance moved by
the petitioner-wife in case DV/1/2021 and granted interim
maintenance @ Rs.2500/- per month for the minor ... inter alia on these grounds that petitioner prays for
transfer of the case, as detailed in para 1 above.
4. I have heard learned counsel
previous date, the mediation report had already been received. The
DV Act case has been filed as far back as 2016 and the petitioner herein ... limine with a direction to the concerned JMIC where the DV Act case is
pending to expedite the trial of the case and dispose
added to Section 12(1) of the DV Act is only to the effect that in
case a domestic incident report has been received ... DV Act . Even this High Court in the case Jagdish Kumar
Bakhri vs. Manju Bakhri , 2012 SCC Online P&H 395, observed that
entertain the petition and quash the complaint under
the DV Act , in case, it transpires that the said complaint is nothing, but an
abuse ... judgment as rendered in Amit Aggarwals (supra) case would be
distinguishable on facts, since complaint under the DV Act was preferred
after the decree
effect?OPR
3. Relief."
4. In support of her case before the Family Court, the
respondent-mother examined herself as PW1 and her father ... orders
of school case), Ex.P3 (copy of petition under DV Act case) and Ex.P4 (a
certified copy of charge sheet
aforesaid order. It cannot be disputed that DV Ban was imposed against the case of the petitioner on 29.8.1986.It was lifted ... name of the petitioner on 4.3.1991. Until the DV Ban was lifted, the case of the petitioner for review could not have been considered
appropriate in the present case.
3. Brief facts of the case are, Charanjit Kaur - respondent No. 2
(applicant in main case) filed complaint under Section ... later on did not support
support in quashing of criminal case
case. In that
2026.04.01 14:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
appropriate in the present case.
3. Brief facts of the case are, Charanjit Kaur - respondent No. 2
(applicant in main case) filed complaint under Section ... later on did not support
support in quashing of criminal case
case. In that
2026.04.01 14:31
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this
