Delhi Mahila Court Grants Ex-Parte Interim Residence Order to Domestic Violence Complainant
New Delhi, January 25, 2025: In the case of Anita Khanna Vs. Ashish Khanna (Ct. Case No. 97/2025), the Mahila Court of North District, Rohini, presided over by Ms. Mohini Meeha, Reliever Judge/JMFC (Mahila Court)-02, granted an ex-parte ad-interim Residence Order in favour of the complainant and her minor son, Taksh Khanna. Advocate Sudeep Yadav, appearing on behalf of the complainant, advanced detailed arguments highlighting the harassment, abuse, and attempts at dispossession allegedly meted out to his client by the respondent at the shared household situated at H-5/3, 2nd Floor (balcony room), Sector-11, Rohini, Delhi-110085. After hearing the submissions, the Court appreciated the arguments advanced by Ld. Counsel and, taking note of the complainant’s affidavit and the Domestic Incident Report (DIR) filed by the Protection Officer, held that a prima facie case of domestic violence was made out. Invoking Section 19 read with Section 23 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, the Court restrained the respondent from forcibly dispossessing the complainant and her child from the shared household without due process of law, till further orders.
Delhi Court Discharges Husband in Wife's Death Case, Accepts No Abetment to Suicide Made Out
New Delhi: In a significant relief to the accused, the Court of Ms. Shilpi Jain, Additional Sessions Judge-02, Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, discharged Upender Singh in FIR No. 424/2022 registered at PS Wazirabad under Section 306 IPC (abetment to suicide) in connection with the death of his wife, Diksha, who succumbed to burn injuries. Advocate Sudeep Yadav, appearing for the accused, argued that the deceased’s own statement recorded on 04.05.2022, a video call recorded by her brother on 05.05.2022, and the statement of the couple’s minor daughter, all consistently showed the incident to be an accident arising out of a domestic dispute, with the accused having tried to save his wife rather than harm her. It was further argued that the deceased herself had, in her statement, denied that her husband had burnt her, and that her death occurred 18 days after the incident due to septicemia, and not directly as a result of the burn injuries. The Court, after appreciating the arguments advanced by Ld. Defence Counsel and examining the medical and evidentiary record, held that no ingredients of abetment or suicide under Section 306 IPC were made out against the accused, and accordingly discharged him of the said offence vide order dated 06.11.2024.
₹2 Crore Stock Trading Fraud: Patiala House Court Extends Interim Bail to Accused Bishnu Shrestha
The Patiala House Courts have granted a 21-day extension of interim bail to Bishnu Shrestha, accused in an ₹2 crore cyber fraud case involving a WhatsApp-based stock trading scam that allegedly cheated investors, including a complainant who lost ₹18.84 crore. Additional Sessions Judge Saurabh Partap Singh Laler passed the order on the accused’s bail extension application, noting that the investigation stood complete, the chargesheet had been filed. Advocate Sudeep Yadav represented the accused, while Additional PP Mukul Kumar appeared for the State.
Divorce Granted on Grounds of Cruelty: A Case Win for Adv. Sudeep Yadav
In a significant matrimonial matter, HMA No. 562900/16 (Mahender Singh vs. Vimlesh Singh), the Family Court, North-West, Rohini, Delhi, presided over by Ms. Rajrani, Judge, Family Court, granted a decree of divorce in favour of the petitioner, Sh. Mahender Singh, under Sections 13(1)(ia) and (ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on the grounds of cruelty and desertion. The petitioner was ably represented by Adv. Sudeep Yadav, whose meticulous presentation of evidence and effective cross-examination of the respondent proved decisive in the outcome. The Court noted that the respondent had levelled unsubstantiated allegations of an extramarital affair against the petitioner without producing any supporting documentary evidence — a conduct the Court held, relying on settled precedents including Vinita Saxena v. Pankaj Pandit and V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat, amounted to mental cruelty. The Court further found that the petitioner had successfully established desertion for a continuous period exceeding two years preceding the filing of the petition, as the respondent’s testimony on this aspect remained inconsistent under cross-examination while the petitioner’s stood firm. Appreciating the evidence led on behalf of the petitioner, the Court concluded that the matrimonial relationship had deteriorated beyond repair and accordingly dissolved the marriage vide judgment dated 04-07-2024, with no order as to costs. This case underscores the importance of strong evidentiary groundwork and skilled cross-examination in matrimonial litigation — an approach that continues to guide Adv. Sudeep Yadav’s practice in family law matters.
Allahabad High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Accused in Agra Rape Case
The Allahabad High Court has granted anticipatory bail to Kartik Dabas, a school teacher accused of rape and other offences under Sections 376, 313 and 506 IPC, in a case registered as Case Crime No. 0008 of 2026 at Police Station Tajganj, Agra. The case originated as a Zero FIR lodged in Delhi following a magistrate’s direction under Section 156(3) CrPC on the prosecutrix’s complaint, and was later transferred to Agra where the cause of action arose. The accused’s plea for anticipatory bail had earlier been rejected by the District Court, where Advocate Sudeep Yadav represented him, prompting the accused to move the High Court in appeal. Justice Rajiv Lochan Shukla, hearing the matter through counsel for the applicant, initially granted interim protection on March 31, 2026, before the State could obtain instructions. On April 16, 2026, after hearing detailed submissions /arguments — including the prosecution’s claim that the accused had blackmailed the victim using intimate photographs and coerced her into an abortion — the Court held that the relationship between the two, who had known each other for years, appeared consensual and not induced by any false promise of marriage, particularly noting that the victim herself was a married woman for whom marriage to the applicant was not legally possible. Observing that the applicant had no criminal antecedents, the Court allowed the anticipatory bail application, subject to standard conditions including cooperation with investigation, non-tampering with witnesses, and a bar on leaving the country without permission, while clarifying that its observations were confined to the bail plea and not a comment on the merits of the case.