Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.40 seconds)The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
Section 482 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 25 in The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Section 468 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 12 in The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Section 29 in The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Arul Daniel vs Suganya on 4 May, 2022
19. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the revision.
However, at the same time as held by the Hon’ble Full Bench in Arul
Daniel's case (referred herein supra) directing the physical appearance of
the respondents for all hearing should not be normally insisted upon and
therefore, personal appearance of the petitioners cannot be insisted upon
by the learned Additional Mahila Judge, Alandur and therefore, a
direction is issued to the Mahila Court to permit the petitioners to appear,
11/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/07/2025 02:49:42 pm )
CRP. PD. No.1233 of 2025
either in person or through duly authorised counsel and personal
appearance of the petitioners shall be insisted upon only when the
Magistrate deems it absolutely necessary for the purposes of examination
of the petitioners, in chief and cross examination.
P.K.Nagarajan @ Meenakshisundaram vs N.Jeyarani on 30 January, 2014
8. Per contra, Mr.Abdul Basith , learned counsel for the respondent
would state that the petitioners are residing in one shared household
admittedly, that is under one roof and when allegations are made against
all the petitioners, the matter certainly requires a trial and therefore, the
complaint cannot be struck off as not maintainable. He would also rely
4/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/07/2025 02:49:42 pm )
CRP. PD. No.1233 of 2025
on the decision of the Full Bench of Arul Daniel's case (referred herein
supra) in support of the contentions besides order of this Court in
Nagarajan and others Vs. N.Umajothi, in CRP. No.1865 of 2023.
Kunapareddy @ Nookala Shanka Balaji vs Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari on 18 April, 2016
In fact, this Court also relied on
the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kunapareddy @ Nookala
10/13
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 21/07/2025 02:49:42 pm )
CRP. PD. No.1233 of 2025
Shanka Balaji Vs. Kunapareddy Swarna Kumari and another, reported in
2016 (11) SCC 774 to conclude that the revision under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India is not a remedy for the respondents who have been
issued notices under the DV Act.