Dv case and appeal

Yes you can go for revision application in sessions court in case if you are not satisfied with metropolitan courts order.

yes you can file an appael according to section 29 DV Act 29. Appeal.- There shall lie an appeal to the Court of Session within thirty days from the date on which the order made by the Magistrate is served on the aggrieved person or the respondent, as the case may be, whichever is later. CHAPTER V MISCELLANEOUS CHAPTER V MISCELLANEOUS feel free to call

Dear Shaheen,

My question is that we have given an application stating that DV after 5.0 years gap is not maintable and many reasons mentioned in my query.If court will order orally,that DV is maintable then can i appeal revision application under Sec.29 in sessions court?Because as off my knowledge if Lower court pass any intrim order aggrived person or respondent is not satisfied with that then appeal against that order can be filed under Sec.29.Kindly,clarify it...

 

Bail, if you have made an application on maintainability of the application on retrospective grounds(5.0 yrs of gap) the court before passing any interim order will first decide maintainability issue and an order will be passed on your application. If you are not satisfied with the order you can go for revision to sessions court.

If by 5 years gap you mean,the Domestic violence occured before passing of the act in 2005 then in that case your application will not be maintained as the act clearly says "domestic relationship at any point of time" . There are many higher courts judgements to that effect. You will have to find different approach to combat the isuue.

VERY LEARNED ANSWERS ALREADY GIVEN

BY THE WAY WHICH CITY R U IN. UNDER WHICH ACT IS THE LITIGATION PENDING IN FAMILY COURT. WHAT IS YR RELIGION. JUDICIAL HEIRARCHY, WHETHER APPEAL OR REVISION WILL DEPEND. YR FACTS R INCOMPLETE. 498 MUST BE BEFORE JMIC. FAMILY COURT SEIZED OF DIVORCE AND MAINTENANCE FINE. APART FROM 125 WHAT ABOUT 24 HMA. ARGS IN 2ND WEEK OF FEB, ON WHICH APPLN, UNDER WHICH ACT, MOVED BY WHOM. QUERY HAS TO BE PROPER FOR ONE TO ANSWER. U HAVE VERY POOR COMMUNICATION SKILLS.

Fight all the cases on their merits.

You can file for quash of DV in HC on the basis of it being filled after 5 years of separation.

You can appeal u/s 29 of DV against order of megistrate in sessions court.

Dear Chitanya,

If the lower court does not allow our application regarding maintibility of DV,then can i appeal in sessions court under sec.29 of DV act and get stay order by sessions court untill our revision application of Maintibility of DV comes to an end?

Yes.you can appeal against an order of megistrate court in sessions court & ask for stay of proceedings in lower court.

While will lower court not consider maintainability when Apex court in Inderjit Grewal Vs State of Punjab said that DV after 1yr of ceasing domestic relationship can't be filed.

Lower courts don't follow supreme court orders ?

 

thx

IF THE MATTER IS IN FAMILY COURT, THEN APPEAL/REVISION PROBABLY LIES TO HIGH COURT AND NOT SESSIONS. 

Dear Rajendra,

In my querry it is clearly mentioned that"Child custody and Crpc 125 running in Family court since 2007 " not DV.

DV is in JMFC court...

AGE AND SEX OF CHILD R UTMOST RELEVANT

DV case after after 5 years of separation will not be maintainable.....but I doubt that the Lower court will look into the maintainablility issue...if the JMIC court run the case then it will be a misuse in the process of law..

 

Also she is trying to squeeze you by taking maintenance from 2 cases - DV in the JMIC court and 125 in the family court...this is also a process of misuse in the process of law..

 

These who issues will be best dealt by the high court..because in both these issues there is a question of a misuse in the process of law...I suggest you file an application u.s 482 CrpC..and let the HC decide..

 

I am sure you will get good results..

 

And, in case if the JMIC passes an order u.s 23 for interim maintenance..you will get an opportunity to appeal u.s 29 of the act and you still apply in the HC for the above two issues...

 

Vikram