Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.21 seconds)Section 12 in The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Section 125 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 23 in The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Parveen Tandon vs Tanika Tandon on 7 June, 2021
17. Similarly, in Parveen Tandon v. Tanika Tandon: 2021 SCC
OnLine Del 3044, a Coordinate Bench of this Court observed that the
question as to whether the respondent therein had been duped by the
petitioner or whether she was a party to an adulterous or bigamous
relationship, and whether such conduct would disentitle her to any
protection under the PWDV Act, could be determined only after
evidence was led. In the said case, the Coordinate Bench directed that
in the event the Magistrate, upon appreciation of evidence, comes to
the conclusion that the respondent was not entitled to protection
under the PWDV Act, it may direct the respondent therein to return
the amount received by her as interim maintenance.
Section 29 in The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Section 24 in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
Section 3 in The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Ajay Kumar vs Uma on 21 March, 2022
In Ajay Kumar v. Uma: 2024 SCC
OnLine Del 148, a Coordinate Bench of this Court held that interim
Signature Not Verified CRL.REV.P. 335/2024 Page 8 of 15
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:04.02.2026
16:44:01
maintenance under the PWDV Act cannot be denied merely on the
basis of unproven allegations of an illicit relationship.
Nirmaan Malhotra vs Tushita Kaul on 30 November, 2022
In Nirmaan Malhotra v. Tushita Kaul: 2024 SCC OnLine Del
4326, while upholding the order passed under Section 24 of the
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 granting maintenance pendente lite, the
Division Bench of this Court held that allegations of adultery are
matters of trial and that the photographs placed on record for the first
time before the Court could not be said to conclusively establish
whether the person concerned was the wife. The Division Bench also
took judicial notice of the prevalence of deepfakes in generating fake
images and, therefore, held that this is an aspect which the appellant-
husband would have to prove by leading evidence before the Family
Court. Since the divorce petition was pending, it was further directed
Signature Not Verified CRL.REV.P. 335/2024 Page 9 of 15
Digitally Signed
By:ZEENAT PRAVEEN
Signing Date:04.02.2026
16:44:01
that if this issue is raised by the husband, the parties would be
afforded an opportunity to lead evidence in this regard.
1