Nagpur: In a significant development, the 15th Joint Civil Judge Court of Nagpur has dismissed a domestic violence petition filed under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, against Shiv Sena leader Karan Tuli. The court observed that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate her claims of domestic abuse or establish legal entitlement to the properties in question.
The order, delivered recently, came in response to Criminal Application No. 1181/2024 (petitioner & others vs Karan Tuli), marking a crucial ruling in a case involving serious allegations of domestic violence, property disputes, and claims over “stridhan” (women’s wealth).
Gold Rate
15 july 2025
Property claims without proof
The petitioner had accused her husband, Karan Tuli, of domestic harassment and forcefully evicting her from their matrimonial home. In her plea, she laid claim to seven high-value properties located in Nagpur and Madhya Pradesh, including:
• Amaltash Vihar
• Shop in Rai Gulmohar
• Flat in Lata Mangeshkar Complex
• Agricultural lands in Gondkheri, Khandala (Dumri), and Chicholi Bud (MP)
Additionally, she asserted ownership over kundan and diamond jewellery, gold bangles, and rings as part of her stridhan.
Court’s key observations
Presiding Judge Dipali Manohar Shinde ruled that no credible evidence was presented by the petitioner to establish that the mentioned properties qualified as a “shared household” under the Domestic Violence Act. The court noted the absence of:
• Legal documentation supporting co-ownership
• Witness affidavits or testimonies verifying the gift or ownership of the jewellery
• Valid proof linking the petitioner’s residence to the disputed properties
The judge emphasized that the request for restraining orders based solely on public sale notices lacked legal merit.
Legal interpretation
Referring to Sections 19 and 2(s) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005, the court highlighted that the petitioner had not fulfilled the legal criteria to prove the existence of a shared household or entitlement to residence-related protection under the Act.
Final verdict
In her ruling, Judge Shinde stated:
“The application filed under Exhibit No. 10 is hereby rejected.”
Both parties were directed to acknowledge the order and proceed in accordance with legal protocol.
The ruling underscores the judiciary’s insistence on substantive evidence in domestic violence and property-related disputes, reaffirming that claims, however serious, must be legally and factually supported to stand in court.
