Supreme Court of India Judgements

46660 Judgements hosted as on 19/11/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Domestic Violence

Domestic Violence

If an aggrieved person is not in a domestic relationship with the respondent – but has at any point of time lived so or had the right to live and has been subjected to domestic violence or is later subjected to domestic violence on account of the domestic relationship, is entitled to file an application under Section 12 of the D.V. Act.

May 16, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISON BENCH PRABHA TYAGI — Appellant Vs. KAMLESH DEVI — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 511 of…

Domestic Violence

Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Bar to taking cognizance after lapse of the period of limitation — HELD by the time an application is preferred u/S 12 of the Act, there is no offence committed in terms of the provisions of the Act and as such there would never be a starting point for limitation from the date of application under Section 12 of the Act – Such a starting point for limitation would arise only and only after there is a breach of an order passed under Section 12 of the Act

Apr 17, 2022 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH KAMATCHI — Appellant Vs. LAKSHMI NARAYANAN — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ. ) Criminal Appeal No. 627…

Domestic Violence

Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 – Section 8 – Summary Eviction Procedure – Right of a woman to secure a residence order in respect of a shared household cannot be defeated by the simple expedient of securing an order of eviction by adopting the summary procedure under the Senior Citizens Act 2007.

Dec 17, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SMT. S VANITHA — Appellant Vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Dr. Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud, Indu…

Domestic Violence

Shared household means where person aggrieved has lived at any time in domestic relationship either singly or with respondent – The household may be a joint family or jointly tenanted irrespective of title or ownership of property. “Right to reside in shared household” – The aggrieved has right to reside in shared household property continues until she proves that she is a victim of domestic violence,

Oct 18, 2020 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH SATISH CHANDER AHUJA — Appellant Vs. SNEHA AHUJA — Respondent ( Before : Ashok Bhushan, R. Subhash Reddy and M.R. Shah, JJ. ) Civil…

Domestic Violence

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Section 12 – Right of residence – Alternative accommodation – Under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 the appellant would certainly be entitled to a shared residence being her matrimonial home or in lieu thereof her husband to provide her with a suitable reasonable accommodation in accordance with law -Decided on : 29-04-2020

Apr 30, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH NEELAM GUPTA — Appellant Vs. MAHIPAL SHARAN GUPTA AND ANOTHER — Respondent ( Before : Uday Umesh Lalit, Indu Malhotra and Krishna Murari,…

Domestic Violence

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 – Sections 2(s), 3(iv) and 19 – Right to residence in matrimonial home – Victim of domestic violence – The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 has recognised the concept of “shared household” in terms of Section 2(s) of this statute. Alienating an immovable asset to defeat the right of a victim lady under the said Act can constitute domestic violence, coming, inter-alia, within the ambit of the expression “economic abuse” under Section 3(iv) of 2005 Act. There cannot be forcible dishousing of a wife from her matrimonial home. Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 – Section 18 – Right to residence in matrimonial home – A married woman is entitled to live, subsequent to her marriage, with rest of her family members on the husband’s side,Decided on : 27-04-2020

Apr 28, 2020 sclaw

  SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH AISHWARYA ATUL PUSALKAR — Appellant Vs. MAHARASHTRA HOUSING AND AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS — Respondent ( Before : Deepak Gupta and Aniruddha…

You missed

Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 376 and 313 — Rape — False promise of marriage — Physical relationship with the complainant under the false promise of marriage, leading to her pregnancy and subsequent abortions — Whether the FIR should be quashed based on the allegations and the delay in filing the complaint — The petitioner argued that the relationship was consensual and the delay in filing the FIR undermines the credibility of the allegations — The respondent claimed that the petitioner deceived her with a false promise of marriage, leading to non-consensual physical relations — The Supreme Court quashed the FIR, noting the long-term consensual relationship and the lack of prima facie evidence for rape under Section 376 IPC —The Court emphasized the delay in filing the FIR and the nature of the relationship, which appeared consensual —The Court referred to previous judgments, highlighting the importance of prima facie evidence and the misuse of legal provisions —The FIR and all proceedings based on it were quashed, preventing abuse of the legal process.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120-B —Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) — Financial misconduct and conspiracy — Whether the High Court was correct in discharging the respondent from the charges of conspiracy and financial misconduct — The CBI argued that the High Court conducted a mini-trial at the charge-framing stage and that there was sufficient suspicion to frame charges against the respondent — The respondent’s counsel argued that the material in the charge sheet did not make out a case against the respondent and that the High Court rightly discharged him —The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to discharge the respondent, stating that mere suspicion was not enough to frame charges – The Court found that the respondent’s role was limited to signing the memorandum prepared by senior officers and participating in the Management Committee meeting, which approved the proposal — The Court emphasized that the proposal had passed through various committees and that the respondent’s actions did not amount to criminal misconduct — The appeal was dismissed, and the respondent was discharged from the charges — The trial against other accused persons will continue.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Municipal Laws

Patna Municipal Corporation Act, 1951 — Sections 146, 423 and 488(1) — The Patna Municipal Corporation imposed a royalty on advertisements, which was later increased — The respondents challenged this imposition, arguing it was a tax without legislative backing — Whether the royalty imposed by the Corporation was a tax and if it was legally enforceable without legislative sanction — The Corporation argued that the royalty was agreed upon by the parties and was not a tax — They contended that the enhancement of the rate was within their rights — The respondents argued that the imposition was a tax, which required legislative sanction, and the Corporation had no authority to levy it — The Division Bench quashed the enhancement, ruling that the Corporation had no power to impose the tax without legislative backing — The Court found that the royalty was not a tax but a fee agreed upon by the parties — It held that the Corporation’s actions were within the scope of the agreement — The Court distinguished between royalty and tax, emphasizing that royalty is based on an agreement, not statutory provision — The Court upheld the imposition of royalty as per the agreement but noted that the enhancement in rates was not challenged effectively — The judgment of the Division Bench was set aside.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Constitution

Citizenship Act, 1955 — Section 6A — Special provisions as to citizenship of persons covered by the Assam Accord — The case involves the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955, which grants citizenship to certain migrants from Bangladesh to Assam —The main issues include whether Parliament had the legislative competence to enact Section 6A, and if Section 6A violates Articles 6, 7, 14, 29, and 355 of the Constitution — Petitioners argue that Section 6A is unconstitutional as it conflicts with Articles 6 and 7, adopts unreasonable cut-off dates, and violates Articles 14, 29, and 355 — Respondents contend that Section 6A is within Parliament’s legislative competence under Article 11 and does not violate the Constitution — The judgment addresses the legislative competence of Parliament, the reasonableness of cut-off dates, and the impact on Assamese cultural identity — The court examines the historical context of citizenship provisions, the legislative intent behind Section 6A, and the scope of judicial review under Article 14 — The court analyzes the constitutional provisions on citizenship, the legislative objective of Section 6A, and the balance between legislative intent and constitutional mandates —The court concludes that Section 6A of the Citizenship Act is constitutional and does not violate the cited Articles of the Constitution.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw