Dv to filed within one year, recent judgement by indore hc?

This is a basic law in CRPC.

Not only MP but Bombay HC has also given similar judgment.

There is also APEX COURT judgment for limitation of one year for DV cases.

please spare time and search various judgement sites. you will get them.

If there is any real case pending pl give details and we will give proper  solution.

@jeevan.....thank you buddy for your cooperation. however i doubt the author of that specific post. as the judgement itself has not been uploaded on the official MP highcourt website. then where did the author get this judgement copy from?

also since DV is treated as a criminial miscelleneous case, then ideally 468 should apply...i request other experts to shed light on this topic please.....

@maxx, I arranged judgement from my sources. See my post there and entire discussion. 

hi jeevan.........have been through your recent post, thank you for your effort. i went through the link provided by you, 

https://we.tl/DEAV6YeceE

this link is no longer available..........if you can please share the copy again. it will be great...

thanks

Uploaded again, https://is.gd/y0A5Zt

This download link will expire on 17th Nov, so interested people can download before that. If not, feel free to message me and I will upload again. 

Dear READER,                                          23/11/2014

AFTER THE LONG DISCUSSION IN FORUM I FOUND THAT IT IS UNENDING DEBATE.

Rather than to wastage the time of the reader there should be positive approach to immediate post the judgment which I am trying for the sufferer of the DV act.

THIS IS THE LINK COPY PASTE IT

https://daman4men.in/law/judge/dv/docs/2014-07-22___8955___2013.pdf

SECOND judgment is  of BOMBAY HIGH COURT-- SEJAL DHARMESH VED VS STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO. 160 OF 2011

Sejal Dharmesh Ved .. Applicant
Vs.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents

Mr. Amit S. Dhutia i/b Niranjan Mundargi for the Applicant.
Mrs. A. A. Mane, APP for Respondent No.1 ­State.

CORAM : MRS. ROSHAN DALVI, J.
DATE : 7th MARCH, 2013.

1. The applicant­wife has challenged the order of the Court of Sessions at Greater Bombay dated 27.10.2010 holding that her application under the Prevention of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (D.V Act) is not maintainable because she was not in any domestic relationship.

2. The applicant married on 04.05.1999. She lived with her husband in the US. There are two issues from the marriage. She returned to India on 11.02.2009.

3. She filed her application under the D.V Act on 18.01.2010.

4. The learned Judge has considered that under these circumstances, she having come to India in February, 2009 and having filed this application in January, 2010, there was no domestic relationship between the parties. The learned Judge has considered the definition of domestic relationship. Of course, that relationship is defined to be one of which the party then lived and had earlier lived. That would be during the subsistence of the union between them. The application under the D. V. Act could be filed, when the marriage union subsisted. That having came to an an end and long after the physical relationship came to be an end, she having returned to India, she cannot be taken to be living in any domestic relationship in India.

5. A wife who lived in a domestic relationship earlier, but which ceases only because of any domestic violence can certainly file an application for such domestic violence that took place whilst she lived in that relationship. Such application is required to be filed within a reasonable time to show that relationship would give her the cause of action to sue under the D.V. Act for the reliefs under the Act.

6. A wife who has returned from the USA and consequently from the domestic relationship and lived in India for one year cannot file an application with regard to that relationship after such time. Such wife cannot be taken to be in any domestic relationship. The order of the learned Judge is, therefore, correct. The writ petition is completely devoid of merits and accordingly dismissed.

(ROSHAN DALVI, J.)