Amol Madhukarrao Ingale v. Sau Amruta Amol Ingale Othr,MH, 2018 .PDF
The wife filed an application u/s 12 of the DV Act against the husband seeking maintenance and other reliefs. The magistrate directed the husband to pay an amount of Rs.1,000/- p.m. to the wife and Rs.500/- p.m. to the minor children as maintenance. The husband failed to challenge the order in appeal within the statutory period and later filed an application for condonation of the delay of 91 days in the sessions court. The sessions court dismissed the application on the ground that there was no sufficient cause shown by him. In appeal, the Bombay High Court affirmed the orders passed by the sessions court.
Sri H S Varadaraju v T Kavitha, CRL.RP 6662/2018
The wife filed an application u/s 12 of the DV Act seeking maintenance and compensation. The magistrate directed the husband to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- as damages and Rs.10,000/- compensation, and maintenance of Rs.2,000/- p.m. Aggrieved, the husband filed an appeal in the sessions court wherein the magistrate’s orders were upheld. Thereafter he filed a revision in the High Court seeking condonation of delay of 1900 days contending that settlement talks were going and there was lack of communication. The Karnataka High Court dismissed the revision as no sufficient cause was shown by him for condonation of delay.
Tushar Pramod Autkar v Shachi Tushar Autkar, 2019
The wife filed an application u/s 12 of the DV Act seeking several reliefs. The husband objected on the ground of jurisdiction. The magistrate upheld his objections and dismissed the application filed by the wife under the DV Act. Aggrieved, the wife filed an appeal in the sessions court for condonation of delay of 16 days which was allowed by the sessions court. Thereafter the husband challenged this in the High Court wherein the Bombay High Court held that the order passed by the sessions court was just and proper as the Act is a beneficial legislation for women.