Domestic and intimate partner violence

Over the course of seven years, Mr. X (the “Accused”) caused substantial physical and psychological suffering to his wife Mrs. Y and his daughter Ms. Z (jointly the “Aggrieved") including strangling, physical assaults, threats of killing, and constant humiliation. Furthermore, the Accused prevented his daughter from entering the apartment, where she lived with her parents. During the main trial, the Accused refused to testify and so did the Aggrieved Persons.

Following the divorce of G.M. and G.S., the later violently chased away the claimant and their minor daughter from the common domicile, acquired during their marriage. Due to these violent actions against his wife and their children, the court decided to re-integrate the claimant and to evacuate the accused from the common domicile until the partitioning of the common assets. The decision became final and binding for failure to appeal it. (full text decision on file with the Avon Global Center)

The appellant was convicted of grievous harm (was also charged but acquitted of rape) and was sentenced to a fine of $10,000 or in default a term of three years imprisonment, as well as being ordered to pay the complainant $3,000.  The appellant appealed, arguing that the trial judge erred in law by not giving a proper instruction to the jury on the issue of self-defense.  The Court of Appeal affirmed the conviction, finding “no miscarriage of justice,” where the jury “clearly accepted the version [of events] given by the complainant in relation to the offence of grievous harm, an

Plaintiff and defendant were engaged and had one child.  The trial court entered a protective order due to plaintiff’s allegation that defendant hit her during a visitation exchange.  Plaintiff had a visitation exchange of infant son with defendant at plaintiff’s parents’ house.  Plaintiff’s father carried their infant son towards his house.  Defendant allegedly punched and kicked plaintiff’s father.  When plaintiff tried to pull him away, he threw her into the railing.  The court found that the trial court’s finding was supported by competent evidence, and was

The decedent’s husband shot and killed her in front of their two daughters in 2002. Before her death, the decedent had obtained three expulsion and prohibition-to-return orders against her husband in response to repeated episodes of domestic violence. The Vienna Public Prosecutor denied police requests to detain the decedent’s husband, and stopped the prosecution against him on the basis of insufficient grounds two days before the murder. Police reports show that the law enforcement failed to respond in a timely fashion to the dispute that resulted in the decedent’s murder.

In Golla Yelugu Govindu v. State of Andhra Pradesh, a fourteen-year marriage ended after the husband became addicted to vices, assaulted his wife, and demanded money from her parents. During a quarrel, in the presence of their children, he killed her by striking her back and neck with a sickle. The trial court convicted him of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to life imprisonment.

In 2003, a father murdered his seven-year-old daughter Andrea during a court-approved parental visitation. Ángela González, Andrea’s mother, had previously reported instances of physical abuse to the police on numerous occasions and sought court-ordered restraining orders against him to protect herself and her daughter. The father had refused to accept supervised visitations with his daughter. After killing his daughter, the father committed suicide. The mother brought suit in national court against Spanish authorities.

Maria Elena Gonzalez (“Gonzalez”) filed for a temporary restraining order against her former partner, Maurelio Francisco Munoz (“Munoz”). She complained that Munoz violently attacked her on numerous occasions including burning her with hot grease, choking and beating her, and abusing her three-year-old daughter Flor. The trial court granted a temporary ex-parte restraining order to keep Munoz from Gonzalez and Flor. The court also issued personal conduct and stay-away orders, and granted physical and legal custody of Flor to Gonzalez with no visitation rights for Munoz.

One of the parties’ children accused petitioner of sexual assault, including improper touching of her breasts and vaginal area on multiple occasions. During an interview with Child Protective Services (CPS), the child denied any improper touching, but subsequently stated that petitioner had cautioned her against disclosing any information about the improper touching. Additionally, in a written declaration, petitioner had admitted to rubbing aloe vera on the naked body of the child.