Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (1.66 seconds)
Documents citing Kiran Dutta vs State & Anr. on 11 February, 2014

Ajay Kumar vs Uma on 5 January, 2024

In the facts and circumstances, reliance placed upon Ravi Dutta v. Kiran Dutta & Anr.(supra) by the learned counsel for the petitioner which already stands overruled in Prabha Tyagi v. Kamlesh Devi (supra) is misplaced. The DIR appears to have been duly considered by the learned trial court though reference of the same has not been made in specific in the impugned order dated 15.09.2021.
Delhi High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - A K Mendiratta - Full Document

Prabha Tyagi vs Kamlesh Devi on 12 May, 2022

51. In the instant case, when the proviso is read in the context of the main provision which begins with the words ‘an aggrieved person or a Protection Officer or any other person on behalf of the aggrieved person may present an application to the Magistrate seeking one or more reliefs under the D.V. Act’ would clearly indicate that the aggrieved person can by herself or through her advocate approach the Magistrate for seeking any of the reliefs under the D.V. Act. In such an event, the filing of a Domestic Incident Report does not arise. The use of the expression ‘shall’ in the proviso has to be read contextually i.e., the Magistrate is obliged to take into consideration any Domestic Incident Report received by him when the same has been filed from the Protection Officer or the service provider in a case where the application is made to the Magistrate on behalf of the aggrieved person through a Protection Officer or a service provider. If the intention of the Parliament had been that filing of the Report by the Protection Officer is a condition precedent for the Magistrate to act upon the complaint filed by an aggrieved person even when she files it by herself or through her advocate then it would have been so 76 expressed. But a conjoint reading of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 with the proviso does not indicate such an intention. Thus, the plenitude of power under Section 12 of the D.V. Act is accordingly interpreted and pre-requisite for issuing notice to the respondent on an application filed by the aggrieved person without the assistance of a Protection Officer or service provider and thus there being an absence of Domestic Incident Report, does not arise. If a contrary interpretation is to be given then the opening words of Sub-Section (1) of Section 12 would be rendered otiose and it would be incumbent for every aggrieved person to first approach a Protection Officer or a service provider, as the case may be, and get a Domestic Incident Report prepared and thereafter to approach the Magistrate for reliefs under the D.V. Act, which is not the intention of the Parliament. Hence, in our view, the judgments of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Rama Singh vs. Maya Singh – [(2012) 4 MPLJ 612] and the Delhi High Court in Ravi Dutta vs. Kiran Dutta and Another – [2018 (2014) DLT 61], do not lay down the correct law and are hereby overruled while we affirm all other judgments referred to supra which are in consonance with the line of interpretation made above.
Supreme Court of India Cites 60 - Cited by 49 - B V Nagarathna - Full Document

Sh. Sunil Kumar Jain vs Smt. Anita Jain on 28 February, 2018

24. Appellant   has   relied   heavily   on   DIR   submitted   by   the   protection officer where it is noted that respondent number 1  has a mentally disturbed.  The appellant has relied on the law laid down in 2014 (208) DLT 61 Ravi Dutta v. Kiran Dutta & Anr., where it has been held that non­consideration of Domestic Incident Report (DIR) by the trial court while deciding application under section 12 vitiates the mandate of section 12 and therefore the order of trial court is not sustainable. It is noticed that copy of DIR supplied to Respondent No. 1 by the protection officer does not reflect the handwritten content where it was written on the top of 1st sheet of DIR that Anita Jain/complainant has a mentally disturbed. Thus credibility of DIR loses its significance as the same has been manipulated. Even otherwise the power and functions of Protection Officer are well­defined in section 9 of DV Act and it nowhere   authorises   the   protection   officer   to   give   his   opinion   about   mental condition/status of complainant. Taking of DIR into consideration does not mean accepting   it   for   all   intents   and   purposes   and   DIR   needs   to   be   taken   into consideration so long as it is in conformity with the provisions of DV Act and not for the purposes for which the protection officer is not authorised to give his opinion or exercise his power under the provisions of the said Act. There is no infirmity in the impugned order where learned trial court has observed that the Protection Officer is not   an   expert   psychiatrist   to   give   any   opinion   on   the   mental   capabilities   of   any person. Learned trial court has also rightly observed in the impugned order that the phrase "mentally disturbed" cannot be construed to mean mental illness so as to make  the  complainant  incompetent  to institute   the complaint   case.
Delhi District Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sh. Nikhil Aggarwal vs Smt. Priya Aggarwal on 4 April, 2019

3. Though no ground for filing this appeal has been mentioned in the memorandum of appeal, the Ld. counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the Ld. Trial Court has failed to consider the fact that the respondent/wife herself has been earning Rs.20000/­ per month; she can earn being well qualified than the appellant herein and the appellant is not the owner of any of the property as contended by the respondent/wife; the interim maintenance awarded to the respondent/wife @ 20,000/­ per month each for the maintenance of the respondent/wife and two minor children is without any basis and orders dated C.A. No.186/2018 Nikhil Aggarwal v. Priya Aggarwal Page No.4/ 14 18.08.2018 and 24.08.2018 are liable to be set aside. In support of his submissions, the Ld. counsel for the appellant has also drawn the attention of the court to the judgments i.e. Crl. M. C. No.3106/2008 titled Ravi Dutta and Ors. v. Kiran Dutta and Ors. passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi; SLP (Crl.)
Delhi District Court Cites 16 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sunil Kumar Jain & Ors vs Anita Jain & Anr on 30 April, 2025

20. The Impugned Order suffers from basic jurisdictional error to have taken cognizance of the Complaint by Order dated 08.01.2015, without relying upon the Domestic Enquiry Report. Also the Judgments in Nidhi Kaushik vs. Union of India, 212 (2014) DLT 5; Ravi Dutta vs. Kiran Dutta &Anr., 2014 (208) DLT 61 and Shambhu Prasad Singh vs. Manjari, 2012 (190) DLT 647, have been ignored by the learned Trial Court.
Delhi High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 0 - N B Krishna - Full Document
1   2 Next