Back
AMITAVA ROY, SANGEET LODHA
Sabana @ Chand Bai – Appellant
Versus
Mohd. Talib Ali – Respondent
Sangeet Lodha, J.— The legal question that falls for our determination in this reference made by the learned Single Judge of this Court reads as follows:
“Whether the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 can be applied retrospectively specially where the aggrieved party (wife) was divorced by the respondent (husband) prior to the Act coming into force on October 26, 2006 or not?”
2. The Background facts giving rise to the legal issue may be summarized thus: Smt. Sabana @ Chand Bai, the petitioner, and Mr. Mohammed Talib Ali, the respondent, entered into marriage on 15.10.2001 according to the Muslim customs and rites. The petitioner alleges that from the very beginning of the marriage, she was treated with physical and mental cruelty by the respondent and the members of her in-laws family. Even during pregnancy and thereafter, the respondent and the members of his family did not take care of the petitioner. It is alleged that on 15.4.2002, despite her pregnancy, she was not only assaulted but was ousted from matrimonial home and thus, in the compelling circumstances, she left for her paternal home. Out of the wedlock, a son was born on 14.10.2002. On 6.2.200
None of the case laws listed explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or treated as bad law. Both entries appear to be statements of legal principles or interpretations without any indication of subsequent negative treatment or invalidation.
[Followed / Affirmed]
None explicitly marked as followed or affirmed in the provided list.
[Distinguished / Clarified]
D. Velusamy VS D. Patchaiammal - 2010 7 Supreme 321: "Not all live in relationships will amount to a relationship in the nature of marriage to get the benefit of the Act."
This statement appears to be a legal clarification or a principle established in the case, but there is no indication it has been overruled or criticized. It may serve as a legal interpretation or a guiding principle, but without further context, it remains unchallenged in this list.
V. D. Bhanot VS Savita Bhanot - 2012 1 Supreme 716: "Petition under the provisions of the PWD Act, 2005, is maintainable even if the acts of domestic violence had been committed prior to the coming into force of said Act, notwithstanding the fact that in the past she had lived together with her husband in a shared household, but was no more living with him, at the time when the Act came into force."
This appears to be a legal interpretation or ruling clarifying the scope of the PWD Act, 2005. Again, there is no indication it has been overruled or criticized in subsequent treatment within the provided data.
Both cases are presented as statements of legal principles without references to subsequent judicial treatment, so their current standing (whether overruled or upheld) cannot be definitively determined from the data provided.
The absence of keywords such as "overruled," "reversed," "criticized," or similar phrases suggests their treatment status is unclear or unreported here.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
