Important Legal Insights to the Point by RAKESH SONTAKKE

The appellant had filed a Civil Suit No.541 of 2000 for possession of the suit scheduled property with an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC, seeking injunction restraining the respondent herein from alienating the suit property and putting up any construction thereon. The trial court on the interim application filed by the appellant granted an order of temporary injunction, as prayed for. Be that as it may, Mr. Sachhar is right in contending that unless and untill a case of irreparable loss or damage is made out by a party to the suit, the court should not permit the nature of the property being changed which also includes alienation or transfer of the property which may lead to loss or damage being caused to the party who may ultimately succeed and may further lead to multiplicity of proceedings. In the instant case no such case of irreparable loss is made out except contending that the legal proceedings are likely to take a long time, therefore, the respondent should b...

There is no law that the accused shall personally remain present for cancellation of warrant. If the lawyer makes an application for cancellation of warrant, the same needs to be considered on merits by the learned Magistrate without insisting the for appearance of the Applicant/accused. It is noted by this Court that many Writ Petitions are filed in this Court only because the learned Magistrate straight way take a view that warrant cannot be cancelled unless accused appears before the Court. The view taken by a few of the Magistrates particularly in the city of Bombay, in my opinion, is not correct. It is high time that this Court lets the Magistrate note that the appearance of the applicant/accused is not necessary when application for cancellation of warrant is made. IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY Writ Petition No. 4429 of 2013 Decided On: 24.12.2013 Arunkumar N. Chaturvedi Vs. The State of Maharashtra and Ors. Hon'ble Judges/Coram: M.L. Tahaliyani, J.

Under the provisions of the DVC Act, 2005 the victim i.e. estranged wife or live-in-partner would be entitled to more relief than what is contemplated Under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, namely, to a shared household also. The questions referred to us by the Referral Order were formulated on the basis of the decisions of this court rendered in Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav and Anr. MANU/SC/0579/1988 : 1988 (1) R.C.R. (Criminal) 322 : (1988) 1 SCC 530 and Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat and Ors. MANU/SC/0193/2005 : 2005 (2) R.C.R. (Criminal) 190 : (2005) 3 SCC 636 which were rendered prior to the coming into force of the DVC Act, 2005. In view of what has been stated herein before, it is, therefore, our considered view that the questions referred would not require any answer. We, therefore, decline to answer the said questions. The Appellant is left with the remedy of approaching the appropriate Forum under the provisions of ...

The second prayer in the present petition relates to the quashing of CC No. 7601 of 2017 under Section 12 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (in short ‘PWDV Act’). 10. As perusal of the prayers in the complaint under Section 12 of the PWDV Act relate primarily to grant of maintenance to respondent No. 2 and the minor child. Non providing of maintenance is a continuous cause of action and even if for three years the respondent No. 2 did not claim the maintenance for herself or for the child, the same would not debar her from seeking maintenance under Section 12 of the PWDV Act and the complaint thereon cannot be dismissed being barred by limitation. In the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi (Before Mukta Gupta, J.) Anthony Jose v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. W.P(CRL) 2325/2017 and Crl. M.A No. 13146/2017 (stay) Decided on December 5, 2018 Citation: 2018 SCC OnLine Del 12956

Even in a case where the application under Section 12 is not filed by the aggrieved person but is filed by a protection officer or any other person on behalf of the aggrieved person, such protection officer or any other person will be an aggrieved person if an order sought by such protection officer or any other person has not been granted by the Magistrate. Hence, the expression 'aggrieved person' in Section 29 of the Act is wide enough not only to take in the parties to the application but also a protection officer or a person who has moved the Magistrate on behalf of the aggrieved person. Anyhow, such a finer distinction as is attempted by the revision petitioner does not arise in the present revision since the revision petitioner was the respondent to the application filed by his daughter and the revision petitioner is competent to file an appeal against the impugned order in view of Section 29 of the Act. I am not persuaded to accept the distinction drawn by the learned...

The considerations in the prosecution under Section 498­A of the Indian Penal Code are different from the considerations while dealing with an application under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. “Cruelty” as explained/contemplated by Section 498­A of the Indian Penal Code is different from the “domestic violence” as defined by Section 3 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005. “Economic abuse” as defined by clause (iv) of Explanation I of Section 3 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 cannot be an offence under Section 498­A of the Indian Penal Code. The denial of right of shared household or denial of alternate accommodation to the wife or denial of monetary assistance to the wife will not constitute an offence punishable under Section 498­A of the Indian Penal Code. Considering the facts of the case, in my view, the submissions made on behalf of the applicant relying on the provisions of Section 300 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, are misdirected. Apart from the fac...

It is clear from the provisions of the the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, are mainly made for giving relief to the affected women, due to domestic Violence etc.. The respondent in such case is not an accused, until he commits a breach of an order passed by the Court under the provisions of the Act. It is only after such breach, the respondent is treated as an accused under section 31 of the Act. In other words, the proceeding under the Act are of the quasi civil nature and in such proceeding, the court would have power to allow amendment in an application and written statement. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD Criminal Writ Petition No. 143 of 2010 1 Raosaheb Pandharinath Kamble .....Petitioners. Vs. Shaila Raosaheb Kamble and others Dated;20 april 2010 Citation;2010 CR L J 3596

The relief of interlocutory mandatory injunctions are thus granted generally to preserve or restore the status quo of the last non-contested status which preceded the pending controversy until the final hearing when full relief may be granted or to compel the undoing of those acts that have been illegally done or the restoration of that which was wrongfully taken from the party complaining. But since the granting of such an injunction to a party who fails or would fail to establish his right at the trial may cause great injustice or irreparable harm to the party against whom it was granted or alternatively not granting of it to a party who succeeds or would succeed may equally cause great injustice or irreparable harm, courts have evolved certain guideline. Generally stated these guidelines are: (1) The plaintiff has a strong case for trial. That is, it shall be of a higher standard than a prima facie case that is normally required for a prohibitory injunction. (2) It is necessary...