It is currently Fri Oct 18, 2019 2:24 pm

Reply to topic  [ 7 posts ] 
DV Interim Rejected !! 
Author Message

Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2012 11:51 am
Posts: 208
Just wanted to share some news with you folks....

The DV Interim application filed by madam has finally been rejected by JM.....exactly 3 years after filing it....PHEEEEW !!

My strategy was simple.....Speed up criminal cases...slow down civil cases.

Key points to fight DV interim is :-
1) Always appear on the very first date and make sure any ex-parte order is out of scope.
2) Do not file DV WO.... instead keep prolonging DV/125/Divorce till your criminal case package is taken care....I used application u/s 340, DV non-maintenability, etc.

My DV interim applciation was filed in May 2012 for 1.3 lacs per month.
In Aug 2012 I filed perjury u/s 340...and send opp party in back foot.
In Feb 2014...340 application rejected
In Mar 2014...I filed DV non-maintenable.
In Jan 2015 DV non maintenable this time I was acquitted of 498a/406.
In Feb 2015 finally filed DV WO....with a favorable judgment and oral evidence about her employment.
After 4 2015) DV interim got rejected.

Next date for DV main evidence in July....which I am least worried post 498a acquittal.

I am NRI....wife in India.

will share the order soon.

this is Alipore Court, Calcutta.

...the fight continues.


Fri May 08, 2015 1:32 am

Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2014 3:39 am
Posts: 382

I agree that that maintenance should be delayed at all cost. I mean it should hardly be paid. I visited my inlaws' lawyer to have a talk with him and he was telling me about a case where the wife refused to compromise and instead she was intent on getting maintenance. He said, "after many years, her hair has turned gray and she limps when she comes here because she fell down getting off from the bus." She is not getting anything because most of the time the husband does not deposit anything in the court. He said that when the husband does deposit, it's not enough to pay her lawyer, bus fares etc. He said her life has been wasted.

Fri May 08, 2015 2:34 am

Joined: Fri Apr 13, 2012 11:51 am
Posts: 208
Agreed....its a loss loss situation for both party....but then most of the time it takes years for them to realize that. They asked for Rs1.3 lacs pm and even till last hearing kept begging for atleast Rs. 50K pm for no rhyme or if it is there birth right for such high maintenance.
I respect those women who instead of money ask for speedy justice.....I am yet to find any.

another advice....never claim something which can sting u back. For eg, in DV applications wife claim exorbitant salary of hubby specially NRIs. Like 5 lacs per month...
now in your WO...NEVER make statements I do not make 5 lacs but only 3 lacs pm.
Judge would immediately take your statement at face value and may order 50k to 1 lac interim.

Also never try to level baseless counter allegations while filing your WO....they have zero relevance in eye of law.

Fri May 08, 2015 4:19 pm

Joined: Mon Feb 06, 2012 8:24 pm
Posts: 453
bro why did it take 2 years for your perjury application to be dismissed..

Tue Jun 09, 2015 6:01 pm

Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2011 11:17 am
Posts: 603
The Andhra Pradesh High Court passed an order in Crlp 311/2015 that a case under D V Act is not maintainable if filed on similar grounds as in 498a and the accused were acquitted in the 498a. The order was circulated to all courts in the States of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh.
Though ur case is in Calcutta, U can use this order of AP HC for dismissing the DV case. It can be used as a persuasive citation.

Tue Jun 09, 2015 10:51 pm

Joined: Fri Dec 21, 2012 4:18 pm
Posts: 196
Ganesh Rao JI,

This either something missing in the order or case #. Referred to the case # that you provided and the order says the quash is dismissed and not allowed. Are you referring to some other case ?

PS: I think one should take all suggestions (including mine) with a grain of salt. What worked for one may not for another

Tue Jun 09, 2015 11:37 pm

Joined: Tue Sep 06, 2011 11:17 am
Posts: 603
The order was passed on a batch of petitions including 311/2015. It is true that the petition was dismissed.

In that the HC judge stated circumstances when a case against a person included as respondent in d v case case file for quash of the d v case against him. Two grounds were stated---either there should be no domestic relationship as defined in sec 2(f) of d v act or the d v was filed on similar grounds as 498a and the person/persons are acquitted in the 498a case.

Fri Jun 12, 2015 2:01 pm
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 7 posts ] 

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Designed by ST Software for PTF.