Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 18 (0.29 seconds)Section 26 in The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Section 18 in The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Section 22 in The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Section 12 in The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Puthiyapurayilo Abdul Salam vs P.P.Mariyumma on 11 December, 2006
13. Further in the decision reported in Abdul Salam v.
Mariyumma (2007 (1) KLT 713) wherein it has been held that :
Raju Narayana Swamy vs Beena .M.D on 21 October, 2016
8. But in the decision reported in Raju Narayana
Swamy v. Beena M.D (2017 (1) KHC 607) a Single Bench of this
Court has held that:
Juveria Abdul Majid Patni vs Atif Iqbal Mansoori on 18 September, 2014
In the decision reported in Juveria Abdul Majid Patni v.
Atif Iqbal Mansoori and Another (2014 (1) SCC 736) It has
been held that:
Muhammed Rafeeq vs Ameena on 28 October, 2009
In the decision reported in Muhammed Rafeeq v.
Ameena (2015 (3) KLT SN 119 (C.No.151)a Single Bench of this
Court Held that:
Sudhannya K.N vs Umasanker Valsan on 7 September, 2012
In the decision reported in Sudhannya v. Umasanker
Valsan (2013 (1) KLT 135) a Division Bench of this Court
considered the question as to whether in a pending proceedings
under Section 18(2) of the Hindu Adoptions & Maintenance Act for
past maintenance, whether reliefs under the Domestic Violence
Act (hereinafter referred to as the DV Act) can be granted by the
Family Court and held that by virtue of Section 26 of the
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act such an
O.P.(FC).No.221 of 2016 7
application is maintainable before that court in a pending
proceedings. It may be mentioned here that a Division Bench has
not considered the question as to whether an independent
proceedings for the reliefs claimable under the Domestic Violence
Act can be independently maintained before the Family Court in
that decision. Further, that was a case where though an
application was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate under the
Provisions of Domestic Violence Act when the petitioner filed an
application before the Family Court by way of an interlocutory
application in pending proceedings, the petition pending before the
Chief Judicial Magistrate was not pressed. So this Court has held
that by virtue of Section 26 of the Domestic Violence Act, the
Family Court has power to pass interim protection orders as interim
residence orders in the pending proceedings.