hi friends. can any one give any guidance, judgements, regarding the retrospective effect of the dv act. i have read that mumbai high court has held that the act is retrospective. has any one challenged such judgments or appealed against such judgements. the retrospective effect opens a pandoras box.

Various High Courts have taken diffirent stand on retrospective nature of the DV.

Till date there is no guidelines from SC. And neither am I aware whether the Mumbai court order has been challanged or not.

sir i called on ur no.but i am unable to contact u.I definitely told u that in u r case the retrospective effect has been mistakenly used by court. Court convinced by the opposite lawyer. about the false charges of DV. as u send me u r judgment copies. I studied it & found that this is the completely misuse of DV ACT. U can get remedy under CRPC. Just go to HIGH COURT & FILE the discharge application of false DV CASE AGAINST U. FOR HELP CALL ME ON 9422247317

the Bombay HC lacks clarity and it will take some time and effort before it is clear whether the Act is retrospective or prospective.

dear all brothers,
is there any case filed against the retrospective effect of the dv act.
regards justcause

dear shoneeji and all other members,
here is what i got from a newspaper site.
can any one throw some light on the matter and get the details.
as my case pertains to events prior to the 26-Oct-2006 i will be benefitted immensely if Supreme Court says that the effect is prospective.
regards
ingalgivijay

Various High Courts have interpreted law differently
Acts of violence prior to October 26, 2006 shall be governed by IPC: husband

New Delhi: The Supreme Court will examine whether the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 will have retrospective or prospective operation.
A Bench, after hearing senior counsel Shiv Kumar Sharma and counsel Uday Gupta last week, issued notice to a woman on a petition from her husband challenging a Delhi High Court judgment holding that the Act would have retrospective operation.
The Bench of Justices Altamas Kabir, T.S. Thakur and C.K. Prasad, while posting the matter to July, stayed all further proceedings in the trial court.
According to Akhilesh Verma, the Act came into force on October 26, 2006 and his wife, Aastha Saxena's complaint pertained to an earlier period. He said there were conflicting views among the High Courts on the applicability of the law. While the Delhi and Madras High Courts held that the Act would have retrospective operation, the Madhya Pradesh and Andhra Pradesh High Courts ruled that it would be operative only prospectively.
In this case, the marriage was solemnised on August 23, 1980 and it was alleged that the woman was driven out of her matrimonial home on July 4, 2005. In November 2006, she filed a petition before a magistrate under Section 12 of the Act seeking reliefs. The magistrate granted her an interim relief of Rs.6, 000 a month and passed some other directions. On appeal, the Delhi High Court held that the law would have retrospective operation and declined to quash the proceedings.
In his special leave petition against this order, Mr. Verma contended that it was a cardinal principle of construction that every statute was prima facie prospective “unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective operation.”
In this case, the Act should be applied only prospectively, i.e. from the date of its coming into force, October 26, 2006, from when all acts of domestic violence as defined in Section 3 would be covered.
“Acts of domestic violence prior to October 26, 2006 shall be governed by the provisions of the Indian Penal Code.”
As various High Courts interpreted the law differently, its position was required to be settled by the Supreme Court, the petitioner said.

Indeed, the matter is waiting clarity from SC, you can get interim stay based on this fact.

dear shoneeji,
what are the details needed to be furnished to the court to get the interim stay. my appeal is going on in the district court against interim maintainence given by lower court and one of the grounds for appeal is that the is no retrospective effect of dv act and i have quoted article 20 of the constitution. can i get interim stay now.
regards
ingalgivijay

Nothing is needed to file a petition for stay. It is the arguments only, which are needed.

dear shoneeji,
i need the slp number of the petition filed by akhilesh verma in the supreme court in this matter. pls help me get the number.
regards
ingalgivijay

try searching on judic.nic.in

else I would try in the evening, as this site somehow does not open from my office.

dear shoneeji,
i tried the site, it doesnt open. please could you contact somebody in delhi and try to get the slp number and date as soon as possible.
regards
ingalgivijay

dear shoneeji and all others,
i got the number of the special leave petition filed by akhilesh verma. it is 3988/2010.
any one who is interested may visit the official site of the supreme court and get the details or give me the email address. i will send the same.
regards
ingalgivijay

Vijay,

I am given to believe that SC has given interim stay on the application.

Could you forward me the same at harassed.by.498a@gmail.com . As informed, that site does not open from my office.

Regards,

Shonee Kapoor

dear shoneeji,
i have sent the details to your email id. hope you got the same.
regards
ingalgivijay

dear shoneeji and all others,
i got adjournment on the case based on the details furnished in slp 3988/2010.
now next date is 3 aug. and lets see what happens will keep you posted.
regards.
ingalgivijay

dear shoneeji and all others,
my case has been adjourned till 20th. Sept.
the next date of listing of SLP no. 3988/2010 is 10th. Dec. 2010.
this is for the information for all the members whose case pertains to allegations prior to coming in effect of DV act.
regards
ingalgivijay

Helo Sirs,
I came to know from this forum that Mr. Akhilesh Veram obtained Stay about the decree of Delhi High Court. But in the Website of SC it was mentioned that " Interim Orders of the Delhi High Court will be maintained" . Can you please give me the details of Interim order.

I too faced the same problem. I had litigation running since 2001 and my wife left me in October 2001 by filing a maintenance OP in response to my divorce OP. At Vizag family court OS 51/2004 is pending. She filed DVC in CMM court in this March. We obtained interim stay from AP High Court. But my petition was dismissed on 10th August. Please advise me.

Can I reach the lawer of Mr Akhilesh Verma with minimun fee and obtain Stay on the proceedings of CMM Court.

jeevan

dear sajeku,
i have not been able to get the delhi high court order. you may try to give an application for an adjournment of your case till the matter is decided in the supreme court by attaching the newspaper copy and the slp page. my case has been adjourned twice so far. you may try to get akhilesh verma's lawyer. also see in your objections already filed that you must have maintained that DV act has no retrospective effect. if not try to give your objections and pray for adjournment. i am a layman and i request other senior members of this forum to guide sajeku.

regards
ingalgivijay

Dear ingalgivijay and others,
U mentioned about news paper cutting and its Website. I am unable to find that. Pl give us the details of news paper and URL.

U advised me to not to commit for any share in our porperty or vacating my house in favor of my wife.

My only intention is if the trial goes on merit, I should not be punished for the breach of protection order.

Are U aware of any case where a husband was sentenced for the breach of portection order?
If so pl let all of us know about it.

I also came to know from this forum that the DV act is going to reviewed by Parliament and the women are trying to stop it. So let us also start filing our petitions for the need of review of the woman biased act. Let us campaign for this

dear sajeku,
please give your email id, i will post the newspaper cutting and other details to you.
do not jump to conclusions. fight the case on merits. the protection orders will be long in coming so worry about them later. first make your case iron clad. collect all the proofs to fight the case.
there might be cases but i dont know the details of husband being punished. now dont think negatively about punishment etc.
concentrate on the giving of your objections to the allegations and proving them and proving the lies of your wife.

Dear Ingalgivijay and others,

My email id is sajeku@gmail.com
So please send the news paper cutting and other details to this id

There is a latin maxim 'nullum crimen nulla poena sine praevia sine poenali' which is to say that - penal law cannot be enacted retroactively. It is a well established rule of law dating back a long period.

That said, the Courts of justice have the liberty or rather discretion to apply it judiciously to individual cases in public good, public justice and public interest, with a significant weight attached to the view of the societal implications. Normally the courts try coercive tactics to enforce their orders. In PWDVA there are too many cases presently and they are bound to rise in future. The courts of justice have their own qualifications about using penal provisions. Hence retroactively or not - the system has crumbled. Soon, nobody will care what they do or not do.

When HC gives conflicting decisions - other HC can choose to accept them or not. The ball lies in the SC now. The great founding fathers of our nation have made provisions for women and children in our constitution contemplating a grand vision of equality, respect for so called weaker sex. We should respect them in order that sanity prevails, liberty is guaranteed, and remedy advanced. The SC with all due respect is in state of decay and their conflicting signals communicated by their verdicts to the general public are confusing and losing public respect. So we might ask 'What can they alone do ?' - The answer would be to not do anything until certain basic tenets of governance are rectified starting from their own house.

Judge made law w.r.t IPC 498A and PWDVA is like Bentham said 'It is the judges who make the law. Do you know how they make it ? Just as a man makes laws for his dog. When your dog does something you want to break him of, you wait till he does it and then beat him. This is the way you make laws for your dog and this is the way judges make law for you and me.'

Hanuman,

You are right that the judicial system is under collapse. One key cause which escapes everyone's attention is that legal system is based on principals and standardisation of laws. But when key judicial agencies like the HC and SC give conflicting judgement every other day on various cases not based on the standard of law, but on their own assessment and emotional reaction to the plight of a particular plaintiff, sooner rather than later the system begins to crumble from the weight of contradictions.

An example is the latest judgement of Justice Dhingra of HC Delhi about an NRI woman who lives in the USA with her husband asking for residence rights in her brother's property in Delhi for her to stay as and when she is in Delhi under DVA act. A clear case of property grab. But she was emboldened to bring this to court by the conflicting stands that the various judges in HC and SC take on different cases under DVA. Who has residence rights, who does not, when do those rights begin and when do they end. Can they be enforced against the will of the owner of the property.

Courts in India tend to take on the spot decisions about cases and then try to find precedents to serve their viewpoints. Such a system is doomed for failure under the burden of its own contradictions and stresses and pulls of excess cases. Our systemic breakdown will continue till clear standards and guidelines for judgements are not established. Only then can most cases be sorted out at MM or Sessions levels without burdening the HC and SC with frivolous matters like road widening, cow and dog removal from cities, etc etc.

warm regards

sanjay mehra

UPDATE on SLP challenging retrospectivity of pwdva

http://courtnic.nic.in/supremecourt/tem ... 12810p.txt

ITEM NO.70 COURT NO.6 SECTION II
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Petition(s)for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl) No(s).6127-6128/2010

(From the judgment and order dated 07/07/2010 in CRLMC No.
2134/2010 & CRLMA No. 8324/2010 of The HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT N.
DELHI)

DARBHA ARUN KUMAR AND ANR. Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

DARBHA SONALI ARUN KUMAR Respondent(s)
(With appln(s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned
Judgment and office report )

Date: 25/08/2010 These Petitions were called on for hearing
today.

CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MARKANDEY KATJU
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S. THAKUR

For Petitioner(s)
Petitioner-In-Person


For Respondent(s)


UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R

Issue Notice.

Tag this matter along with SLP (Crl.) 3988/2010 and
SLP (Crl.) 3916/2010.

Until further orders proceeding before the trial court
shall remain stayed.

List both these matters immediately after the expiry of
the four weeks.




( Deepak Joshi ) ( Indu Satija )
Sr. P.A. Court Master


thanks tango999,
also see this,

SLP (Criminal) 3916/2010

STATUS PENDING
Cause Title
V.D.BHANDOT
Vs.
SAVITA BHANOT

Advocate Details
Pet. Adv. MR. JITENDRA MOHAN SHARMA
Res. Adv. MR. ANIL KUMAR BAKSHI

Connected Matter Details

Matter is Connected To SLP (Criminal) 3988 Of 2010 Connected Case Order(s)

Subject Category

CRIMINAL MATTERS - MATTERS RELATING TO HARASSMENT, CRUELTY TO WOMAN FOR DOWRY, DOWRY DEATH, EVE-TEASING, DOMESTIC VIOLENCE ETC.

Listing Details

Matter was Listed 1 Times Earlier.
There are No Further Orders of Listing
You are Visitor Number 618664 As on 28/8/2010
Designed,Developed and Maintained by NIC Computer Cell,Supreme Court of India

thanks vijay
yes vijay i saw this also
As per D.Arun kumar (PIP in 6127-6128/2010)- justice katju may pronounce order on the next date ~ 25/26 sep 2010 as the matter has been tagged to the previous 2 slp of bhanots and akhilesh !!