Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 26 (0.49 seconds)V.D.Bhanot vs Savita Bhanot on 7 February, 2012
The ratio of V.D. Bhanot v. Savita Bhanot is
of no assistance to the petitioner.
Krishna Bhatacharjee vs Sarathi Choudhury And Anr on 20 November, 2015
14. The enunciation of law by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Inderjit
Singh Grewal vs. State of Punjab & Anr., Zuveria Abdul Majid Patni
vs. Atif Iqbal Mansoori and Another, V.D. Bhanot v. Savita Bhanot
::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2018 01:38:47 :::
15 wp1014.17
and Krishna Bhattacharjee v. Sarathi Choudhary and Another does
not take the case of the petitioner any further. The marital relationship
is severed since twenty-seven years prior to the institution of the
proceedings under the DV Act. The petition is entirely predicated on
the premise that since the petitioner-wife is facing hardship,
notwithstanding that the marriage is dissolved in 1987, her well to do
husband must support her financially. Concededly, there is no
interaction whatsoever between the petitioner-wife and the
respondent-husband since the dissolution of marriage, not a single
instance of domestic violence is pleaded in the petition the theme of
which is that the petitioner-wife is living at the mercy of her elder
brother. Even if it is assumed, arguendo, that the limitation prescribed
under Section 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code is not applicable, it
is trite law, that any initiation of the proceedings under the statute
must be done within a reasonable period. Even if the utmost latitude is
given to the petitioner-wife and it is assumed that she was subjected to
domestic violence prior to the dissolution of marriage, the institution of
the petition under Section 12 of the DV Act after twenty-seven years of
the dissolution of marriage is, as observed supra, a gross abuse of the
statutory provisions.
The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
Inderjit Singh Grewal vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 23 August, 2011
14. The enunciation of law by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Inderjit
Singh Grewal vs. State of Punjab & Anr., Zuveria Abdul Majid Patni
vs. Atif Iqbal Mansoori and Another, V.D. Bhanot v. Savita Bhanot
::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2018 01:38:47 :::
15 wp1014.17
and Krishna Bhattacharjee v. Sarathi Choudhary and Another does
not take the case of the petitioner any further. The marital relationship
is severed since twenty-seven years prior to the institution of the
proceedings under the DV Act. The petition is entirely predicated on
the premise that since the petitioner-wife is facing hardship,
notwithstanding that the marriage is dissolved in 1987, her well to do
husband must support her financially. Concededly, there is no
interaction whatsoever between the petitioner-wife and the
respondent-husband since the dissolution of marriage, not a single
instance of domestic violence is pleaded in the petition the theme of
which is that the petitioner-wife is living at the mercy of her elder
brother. Even if it is assumed, arguendo, that the limitation prescribed
under Section 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code is not applicable, it
is trite law, that any initiation of the proceedings under the statute
must be done within a reasonable period. Even if the utmost latitude is
given to the petitioner-wife and it is assumed that she was subjected to
domestic violence prior to the dissolution of marriage, the institution of
the petition under Section 12 of the DV Act after twenty-seven years of
the dissolution of marriage is, as observed supra, a gross abuse of the
statutory provisions.
Section 20 in The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Juveria Abdul Majid Patni vs Atif Iqbal Mansoori on 18 September, 2014
In the light of the enunciation of law in Juveria Abdul Majid
Patni vs. Atif Iqbal Mansoori and another, if an act of domestic
violence is committed, subsequent decree of divorce will not absolve
the liability of the husband nor would aggrieved person be denied
under the DV Act. However, in the facts at hand, there is absolutely no
pleadings muchless evidence, to suggest that the petitioner-wife was
subjected to domestic violence at any point in time, and therefore, to
permit the petitioner-wife to prosecute with petition under Section 12
of the DV Act, instituted thirty-three years after the separation and
twenty-seven years after the dissolution of marriage would be a serious
::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2018 01:38:47 :::
11 wp1014.17
miscarriage of justice. The conscience of this Court is satisfied, that the
petitioner-wife, whose claim to the relief is entirely predicated on her
financial hardship and the prosperity of her former husband, is abusing
the provisions of the Act by claiming relief thereunder twenty-seven
years after the dissolution of marriage.