Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The High Court was hearing a petition filed by a couple aged 57 and 45 years, who had lost their son to road accident, and wanted to re-experience the bliss of parenthood via surrogacy but were barred by certain provisions of Surrogacy (Regulation) Act, 2021.
This roundup revisits the analyses of Supreme Court’s judgments/orders on validity of AIBE; ex-communication of Dawoodi Bohras; decriminalisation of adultery; permissibility of DNA test of children to prove allegations of adultery; and more. It also covers reports on the career trajectory & important decisions of Justice Surya Kant and Justice Dipankar Dutta and the newly appointed 7 judges of the Supreme Court; Explainers on important law points; and Cases Reported in SCC Weekly in the month of February.
Jharkhand High Court refused to disturb the findings of Trial Court and Appellate Court in a title suit for succession by an adopted son, whose adoption was questioned on the ground of customary provisions of Santhals.
The woman lost her father during the Covid-19 pandemic and her mother is unwell. She also has a married sister, 10 years older to her. However, all of them showed their inability to raise the child.
The bench of KM Joseph and BV Nagarathna, JJ has held that the definition of ‘family' under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 is a restrictive and specific one and cannot be expanded to take within its sweep, all heirs, as provided under Hindu law, or other personal laws.
The petition was filed challenging the vires of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Amendment Act 2021 to the extent that the word ‘Court’ is replaced with ‘District Magistrate’
If a failure on the part of a resident Indian be the cause for a child being made available for inter-country adoption, that cannot possibly be viewed as constituting a valid or cogent ground to either doubt the validity of the adoption or question the integrity of the adoption process.
A curious case presented itself before the Karnataka HC wherein they deliberated over an agreement for adoption entered between the biological parents and adoptive parents, when the child was still unborn.
Allahabad High Court: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J. dismissed a writ petition filed for claiming compassionate appointment stating that compassionate appointment
Top Stories Your cheat sheet to Supreme Court’s 545 pages long Money Laundering verdict The 3-judge bench of AM Khanwilkar, Dinesh Maheshwari
“When a child takes on to be a kosher member of the adoptive family it is only logical that he takes the surname of the adoptive family and it is thus befuddling to see judicial intervention in such a matter.”
Chhattisgarh High Court: A Division Bench of Goutam Bhaduri and Deepak Kumar Tiwari JJ. entitled father-in-law to pay maintenance to widowed daughter-in-law
Karnataka High Court: Hemant Chandangoudar, J., allowed the petition and quashed the impugned proceedings initiated against alleged offence under Section 80 of
Patiala House Courts: In a matter for grant of custody parole, Dharmender Rana, ASJ-02, held that, merely because the accused is Muslim
The Central Government notifies the Adoption (Amendment) Regulations, 2021 to amend the Adoption Regulations, 2017 in order to make inter-country adoptions easier.
The Central Government has notified the amendments to the Adoption Regulations, 2017, made by the Central Adoption Resource Authority vide Adoption (First
Bombay High Court: Manish Pitale, J., while stressing upon the concept of adoption expressed that: The practice of adoption has been prevalent
The information provided by the State Governments/Union Territories on the ‘Bal Swaraj’ Portal upto 05.06.2021 shows that there are 30,071 children who have become orphans or have lost one parent or abandoned.
Jharkhand High Court: Shree Chandrashekhar, J., addressed an issue with regard to maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure Code.
Bombay High Court: M.G. Giratkar, J. dismissed a second appeal filed against the judgments of the lower courts wherein the partition suit brought by