Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.18 seconds)The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
Section 473 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 7 in The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Vanka Radhamanohari (Smt) vs Vanka Venkata Reddy And Ors. on 20 April, 1993
11. The Apex Court in the case of Vanka Radhamanohari vs.
Vanka Venkata Reddy [1993 (3) SCC 4], while considering bar of
limitation for taking cognizance of offence as also prayer for
condonation of delay, considered matrimonial offences as exceptional
causes wherein the Court would not throw out the complaint solely on
the ground of delay. In view of the Section 473 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure, the Court can take cognizance of an offence not only when
it is satisfied on the facts and circumstances of the case that the delay
has been properly explained or but also when that is necessary so to
do in the interests of justice. Section 473 has non obstante clause
which means that the said section has overriding effect over Section
468 if the Court is satisfied in the facts and circumstances of the
particular case that either the delay has been properly explained or
that it is necessary so to condone it in the interest of justice. Thus, in
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:37:44 :::
6
respect of matrimonial offences when allegations are of cruelty,
torture, assault by the husband or members of the family to the
complainant, a Court will consider that it is a matter of common
experience that the victim who is subjected to a such acts of cruelty
repeatedly is more or less suffering from continuing offence it is only
as a last resort that wife would approach the Court to unfold the day-
Section 26 in The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Section 10 in The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Article 20 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
1