Ramanand Amit v Ruhi Ramanand, MANU/DE/0256/2011
The wife filed an application under section 12 of the DV Act against her husband seeking maintenance. The magistrate directed the husband to pay an amount of Rs.2,500/-p.m. as rent with a 10% increase each year, Rs.3,000/-p.m. as maintenance and Rs.50,000/- as a lump sum compensation and Rs.500/- as litigation expenses. Aggrieved, the husband filed a writ petition in the High Court. Dismissing the petition, the Delhi High Court observed that the husband has not been following the direction of the magistrate since 9 months of its passing and held that it was clear that the writ petition was filed with an intention of delaying the proceedings.
Harvinder Pal v. Raj Rani, PH, 2012.PDF
The wife filed an application under section 12 of the DV Act seeking maintenance and residence orders. The magistrate directed the husband to pay an amount Rs.2,500/-p.m. as interim maintenance and to provide accommodation. Aggrieved, the husband filed an appeal in the sessions court which was time barred since there was a delay of 16 months and hence was dismissed. Thereafter he filed an appeal in the High Court. Dismissing the petition, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the delay of 16 months was an ignorance of law and hence the magistrate’s order does not need the court’s intervention.
Siddharth Sabharwal v The State of Maharashtra, MANU/MH/2899/2019
The wife filed an application under section 12 of the DV Act against her husband seeking protection orders. Aggrieved, the husband filed a writ petition. Dismissing the petition, the Bombay High Court held that the husband did not avail of the alternative remedy u/s 29 of the DV Act. It relied upon the judgement of Sabita Mark Burges v Mark Lionel Burges (W.P 4150 of 2013), whereby the magistrate restrained the husband from committing any act of violence against the wife and also restrained him from entering the residence where the wife has been residing.
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 residence orders. The magistrate passed ex parte orders directing the husband to pay an amount Rs.2,500/- p.m. as interim maintenance and to provide accommodation. Aggrieved, the husband filed an appeal in the sessions court which was time barred due to delay of 16 months and hence was dismissed. Thereafter he filed an appeal in the High Court. Dismissing the petition, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the delay of 16 months was merely an ignorance of law and hence the magistrate’s order does not need the court’s intervention.