Main Search Premium Members Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 5 docs
The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
Section 19 in The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
Section 18 in The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
V.D.Bhanot vs Savita Bhanot on 7 February, 2012
Section 20 in The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005

User Queries
Try out the Virtual Legal Assistant to take your notes as you use the website, build your case briefs and professionally manage your legal research. Also try out our Query Alert Service and enjoy an ad-free experience. Premium Member services are free for one month and pay only if you like it.
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mohan Lal And Others vs Unknown on 1 February, 2013
CRM-M       No. 8676 of 2012(O&M)                                        ::1::


                                           CRM-M     No. 8676 of 2012(O&M)
                                           Date of decision : February 01, 2013

Mohan Lal and others,

                                                 ...... Petitioners

State of Punjab and others,
                                                 ...... Respondents


CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : None for the petitioners.

Ms. Amarjeet Khurana, Addl. A.G Punjab Mr. Nitin Jain, Advocate for respondent No.4.


1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?

*** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) None has appeared for the petitioners ever since the first date and notice of motion was issued in the absence of counsel for the petitioners.

Counsel for respondent No.4 states that the proposition canvassed in this petition has been rejected by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. As per him, the only ground for quashing of the complaint taken is that the alleged offence under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 occurred before the enactment and, therefore, the complaint was not maintainable.

CRM-M No. 8676 of 2012(O&M) ::2::

In V.D.Bhanot v. Savita Bhanot 2012(1) RCR (Civil) 972, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as follows :-

"8. The attitude displayed by the Petitioner has once again thrown open the decision of the High Court for consideration. We agree with the view expressed by the High Court that in looking into a complaint under Section 12 of the PWD Act, 2005, the conduct of the parties even prior to the coming into force of the PWD Act, could be taken in to consideration while passing an order under Sections 18, 19 and 20 thereof. In our view, the Delhi High Court has also rightly held that even if a wife, who had shared a household in the past, but was no longer doing so when the Act came into force, would still be entitled to the protection of the PWD Act, 2005."

Consequently, both on merits as well as for want of prosecution, this petition is dismissed.

                                           ( AJAY TEWARI        )
February 01,      2013.                         JUDGE