La clientela con la que su empresa cuenta en su mayoría ¿A qué cuidad pertenece? Tabla

There were 10 orders sent by the Guwahati Bench of the Assam High Court. The members of the LCWRI collected information on 4 proceedings in Assam and 2 in Manipur.

! There are 2 final orders in the compilation

! The most common order passed by the Magistrates in Assam appears to be the protection order. In these orders, respondents are prohibited from committing further acts of violence, alienating shared household properties and orders to return stridhan.

! The second most common order granted, is for maintenance. In most cases, maintenance is awarded to the aggrieved woman and the children. Only in one case was maintenance denied to the woman, though no reasons were mentioned for the denial.

! Residence orders have also been granted in a few cases wherein the Respondent has been restrained from dispossessing the aggrieved person from the shared household.

! In one case, where a final order was passed by the court, the maintenance amount was reduced and the interim protection order vacated in consideration of the response filed by the respondent.

Gujarat

The High Court of Gujarat forwarded 112 orders. Information on 17 proceeding was collected by the members of the LCWRI.

" Though there appears to be a substantial number of proceedings, there are few in which any interim reliefs have been granted. All these proceedings are pending in court. Not all the orders provide adequate information on the proceedings.

" There a number of cases which are at the stage of serving notice.

" In some cases either the Protection Officers or the police have been directed to file investigation reports.

" There are significant number of cases in which relief has been denied on grounds that there are pending proceedings under Section 498A of the IPC.

" In many cases reasons for not granting reliefs have not been mentioned.

" In one case, the application was dismissed as it was incomplete in that it was not signed by the Protection Officers, the Magistrate and the applicant.

" In one case the court refused to pass interim orders granting temporary custody, as matters of permanent custody are to be decided under the Guardians and Ward Act and this was considered a ‘short cut’ manner of obtaining custody. The applicant was granted permission to visit the child but no other interim relief was granted.

" In a few cases, the application has been withdrawn by the applicants to attempt a compromise.

" There are some cases where an order for maintenance has been granted.

" In one case an interim order was passed to provide legal aid to the aggrieved woman.

Himachal Pradesh

The High Court of Himachal Pradesh forwarded 17 orders.

! Out of the orders examined, interim relief has been granted in 6 cases. The other cases, proceedings are at the stage of evidence collection or have been delayed due to the failure in serving notice or due to the non appearance of the respondent. In one case, costs have been imposed on the respondent for the failure to file a reply to the notice issued. ! The most commonly granted order is for maintenance. In one case the

Magistrate observed, while granting interim maintenance, that though there was not enough evidence to prove domestic violence, a woman is entitled to maintenance to avoid destitution.

! In one case, an interim maintenance order was granted before the parties were directed to undergo conciliation.

! Protection orders have been granted in some cases restraining the respondents from committing further acts of violence and entering the shared household premises under the influence of alcohol.

! Residence order has been granted in one case, prohibiting the respondent from disturbing the peaceful possession of the applicant. ! There has also been a custody order in one case which also provides

Karnataka

The High Court of Karnataka has provided 14 orders. In these, one order has been passed in a pending proceeding.

! In almost all cases interim orders have been passed and the cases are pending.

! There are a significant number of ex parte orders being granted on the presentation of a prima facie case.

! Orders for maintenance have been granted ex parte in almost all cases where it has been sought. In cases where protection orders have been denied due to the fact that a prima facie case has not been made out, the court has granted orders for maintenance. Even in cases where the woman has been dispossessed, maintenance orders have been given without any corresponding residence orders.

! In two cases, an ex parte order for maintenance was passed on proof of valid marriage.

! Protection orders have been passed only in cases on the proof of a prima facie case. In order to prove a prima facie case, the DIR or medical certificates have been relied upon by the courts. The protection orders rarely provide details on specific acts that are being prohibited. Only in one instance has the court prohibited the respondent from communicating the applicant or threatening her in any manner. ! Residence orders have been passed only in one case where the

respondent has been restrained from disturbing the peaceful possession of the applicant.

Kerala

139 orders were forwarded by the High Court of Kerala. Information on 17 proceedings was collected by the members of the LCWRI.

! Most of the orders are interim in nature, though there are a number of cases where final orders have been granted. In the latter cases, interim orders have been finalized at the time of granting final orders.

! In many of the cases ex parte interim orders have been granted on proof of a prima facie case.

! In most cases residence orders have been claimed and granted. Residence orders have been passed in the following manner:

" Primarily to prevent dispossession and allow for free entry into the shared household and not to disturb peaceful possession.

" Ordering the respondent to remove himself from the shared household.

" In one case, the sons were prohibited from interfering in the management of the property of their mother that devolved on her after the death of their father.

" In one case, residence order was passed despite the respondent’s objections raised on technicalities related to the role of protection officers and the filing of DIR’s.

" The assistance of police officers has been directed to remove the respondent from the shared household.

! Residence orders have been denied in cases where a finding of a property dispute is arrived. This has been done by examining information on pending proceedings in civil suits.

! Alternate accommodation has been ordered in one case, that too in the event that the respondent dispossessed the applicant after the grant of the residence order.

! Protection orders

" Commonly passed to prohibit further acts of violence.

" Prevent alienation of shared household properties and/or assets " Prohibit the respondent from communicating with the applicant. " Return of stridhan and ornaments belonging to the applicant

that have been misappropriated by the respondent.

" In one case the respondent was ordered not to spread scandals about the aggrieved woman.

" In some orders specific acts have been prohibited by a protection order e.g. throwing waste into the portion of the residence occupied by the applicant, obstructing the applicant from going to work or harassing her on the way, causing hindrance to offspring in taking pre-degree exams, committing acts that interfere with the children’s studies, etc

! Monetary orders for maintenance in many of the cases. In one case the sons were ordered to pay maintenance to their widowed mother. ! Compensation for losses suffered due to acts of domestic violence has

been granted in a few cases

! Custody orders have been granted in cases where the respondent has threatened to take away the child.

! It appears that only in very few cases have orders been denied. ! There are a number of cases where complaints were withdrawn as a

settlement was reached between the parties.