Whatsapp Message to Shonee Kapoor
  • 362, II Floor, Kohat Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi 110034
  • Address
  • Call For Help
  • +91-8010850498
X

About Me

Some years back, I was sucked into the labyrinth of Indian Matrimonial laws and a false 498a in particular. To be fair, before it hit me, it was difficult for me to fathom the wide spread misuse of dowry laws and specially 498a in India.

CONSULTATION

Contact Info

  • 362, II Floor, Kohat Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi 110034
  • +91-8010850498, +91-9990855750
  • info@shoneekapoor.com
Awesome Image

acquitted in 498a

Balam Singh Vs. State Of Uttaranchal

Court: Uttarakhand High Court Bench: JUSTICE U.C. Dhyani Balam Singh Vs. State Of Uttaranchal On 11 August 2015 Law Point: Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 306, 498A — Abetment of Suicide — Cruelty — Prosecution not able to prove charges beyond shadow of reasonable doubt — Victim was married to appellant some 8-9 years […]

Read More

Rajashri Subhash Kamble Vs. Subhash Babanrao Kamble and Ors.

Court: High Court Of Bombay Bench: JUSTICE V.M. Kanade Rajashri Subhash Kamble Vs. Subhash Babanrao Kamble and Ors. On 09 March 2007 Law Point: “The Court cannot convert an order of acquittal into an order of conviction except in exceptional cases particularly when the State has not preferred an appeal against the order of acquittal.” […]

Read More

Sarla Prabhakar Waghmare Vs. State of Maharashtra and Ors.

Court:HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY Bench: JUSTICE M.M. Qazi PARMANAND MISHRA Vs. REKHA MISHRA On 13 May 1994 Law Point: Section 498-A – Acquittal – Held, it did not appear that applicant had conclusively established that the beating and harassment was with a view to force her to commit suicide or to fulfil the illegal demands […]

Read More

State of Maharashtra Vs. Ashok Narayan Dandalwar

Court: Supreme Court Of India Bench: JUSTICES G.B. Pattanaik and S.N. Variava State of Maharashtra Vs. Ashok Narayan Dandalwar On 27 April 2000 Law Point: Section 498A – There is not the slightest assertion in any of the letters complaining against the husband either he was making any demand at any point of time or […]

Read More

Unnikrishnan @ Chandu Vs. State Of Kerala

Court: Kerala High Court Bench: JUSTICE P. Ubaid Unnikrishnan @ Chandu Vs. State Of Kerala On 17 August 2017 Law Point: Section 498A — Cruelty — Live in relationship – Accused acquitted as parties had not undergone some sort of ceremonies with the object of getting married and they just started living as man and […]

Read More

Pradeep Singh Vs. State Of Bihar

Court: Patna High Court Bench: JUSTICES R.N. Prasad & C.M. Prasad Pradeep Singh Vs. State Of Bihar On 9 January 2004 Law Point: Sections 302/34, 498-A and 201 — Murder, common Intention, Cruelty, Disappearance of Evidence : No eye-witness to occurrence : Defence denied marriage with deceased : Evident from evidence of prosecution witnesses that […]

Read More

Falguni @ Anirudh Pradhan and Ors. vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)

Court: Jharkhand High Court Bench: JUSTICE D.P. Singh Falguni @ Anirudh Pradhan and Ors. vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) Law Point: The complainant had sexual intercourse with the Appellant even before marriage, proved that she had not been induced into marriage.More over,lack of material proof as regards the marriage,rendered the prosecutions story regarding mock […]

Read More

Penchala Sadaiah & Ors. Vs. State Of A.P.

Court: Andhra Pradesh High Court Bench: JUSTICE Dalava Subrahmanyam PENCHALA SADAIAH & ORS. Vs. STATE OF A.P. On 18 July 2003 Law Point: Prosecution failed to prove cruelty or harassment for not fulfilling demand for additional dowry and failed to prove offence under Section 498A, IPC. Husband not found guilty of offences under Sections 304-B […]

Read More

Rajendra Ramkrishna Lande Vs. State Of Maharashtra

Court: Bombay High Court Bench: JUSTICE Vishnu Sahai Rajendra Ramkrishna Lande Vs. State Of Maharashtra On 30 July 1997 Law Point: Allegations of general nature. Not a case of prosecution that Husband used to physically ill-treat deceased Wife.Fit case to grant benefit of doubt to appellant.     JUDGEMENT   1. Through this appeal, the […]

Read More