Back
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
K. Babu, J
D. SUDHEER – Appellant
Versus
ANUSHA.R. NAIR – Respondent
ORDER
These Criminal Revision Petitions arise from the order dated 16.06.2011 in M.C No.35/2010 passed by the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Pala, in a petition under Section 12 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'the DV Act'), which was modified by the Sessions Court, Kottayam, in Crl.A No.323/2011.
2. The petitioner in M.C No.35/2010 is the revision petitioner in Crl.R.P No.1577/2013. Respondent No.1, her former husband, is the revision petitioner in Crl.R.P No.1173/2013.
3. The parties will be referred to in terms of their status in the Trial Court.
Revision Petition No.1577/2013
4. The petitioner filed an application seeking protection order, residence order and monetary reliefs as per the provisions of the DV Act.
5. The petitioner set up the following pleadings: Respondent No.1 is the husband of the petitioner.
Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 are his parents. Respondent No.4 is his brother. The marriage between respondent No.1 and the petitioner was solemnised on 06.07.2003. Two children were born in their relationship. The petitioner had 115 sovereigns of gold ornaments at the time of marriage. Her father had also purchased a buildin
Basheer VS Usman Koya - 2021 0 Supreme(Ker) 225: No keywords or phrases indicate any judicial treatment (e.g., followed, overruled, reversed). The text describes a legal principle on rebutting presumption under S.139 of the Negotiable Instruments Act without reference to how this case has been treated in subsequent decisions.
RAJNESH VS NEHA - 2020 6 Supreme 322: No keywords or phrases indicate any judicial treatment. The text outlines principles on maintenance laws, including award from date of filing, effect of wife's earnings, disclosure obligations, enforcement, and definition of shared household, presented as authoritative statements without treatment indicators.
Sanjaysinh Ramrao Chavan VS Dattatray Gulabrao Phalke - 2015 1 Supreme 195: No keywords or phrases indicate any judicial treatment, despite containing legal principles such as non-interference in revisional power if another view is possible, requirements for electronic evidence, and quashing futile prosecutions. Terms like "source and authenticity" or "abuse of process" describe doctrine, not treatment of this case.
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
