Supreme Court of India Judgements

46400 Judgements hosted as on 14/04/2024 - 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

Arbitration Constitution

Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996 – Sections 34 and 37 – Curative petition – The Court found that the arbitral tribunal’s decision was not perverse or irrational and that the CMRS certificate did not conclusively prove that defects were cured within the cure period – The Court emphasized the tribunal’s domain to interpret the contract and the limited scope of judicial interference in arbitral awards – The Supreme Court concluded that the curative petition was maintainable and that there was no miscarriage of justice in restoring the arbitral award.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302, read with 34 – Murder – The Supreme Court found that the High Court did not properly address whether the Trial Court’s acquittal was a plausible conclusion from the evidence – The Supreme Court emphasized that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution and that the accused do not have to prove their innocence unless there is a statutory reverse onus – The Supreme Court concluded that the evidence did not warrant overturning the acquittal, as the Trial Court’s view was possible and not perverse.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw
I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 302 – Murder – Dispute over a blocked pathway – The Court found no evidence of provocation by the deceased that would justify the appellants’ brutal attack, nor any exercise of the right to private defence – The Court applied principles from previous judgments to determine the lack of private defence and the presence of intention to cause harm – The Supreme Court concluded that the appellants’ actions were not in self-defence and that their intention was to inflict harm, affirming the lower courts’ decisions.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw
Consumer

Consumer Law – Insurance Act, 1938 – Section 45 – Policy not to be called in question on ground of mis-statement after two years – The Court found no suppression of material facts and criticized the NCDRC for not requiring proper evidence from the respondent – The judgment discusses the principles of ‘uberrimae fidei’ (utmost good faith) and the burden of proof in insurance contracts – The Court concluded that the insurance company failed to prove the alleged suppression of facts, thus the repudiation was unjustified.

Apr 14, 2024 sclaw