Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Allahabad High Court said that the Court below has adopted a hyper technical approach and passed the dismissal of the husband’s divorce petition
Delhi High Court observed that an inadequately drafted agreement will be one that fails to include essential elements such as the name of all the relevant parties, the terms outlining the conditions of settlement, and the consequences in the event of non-compliance or breach.
This ruling is significant in the light of the judgment dated 01-05-2023, wherein the Constitution Bench had held that the Supreme Court has the power to dissolve a marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India.
Trial Court is not barred from granting maintenance from the date of the order if there are circumstances and reasons for doing the same
The right of privacy claimed by the husband vis-à-vis the prayer of the wife to seek assistance of the Court for production of records to substantiate her charge of adultery levelled against the husband in her petition seeking divorce was the question before the Delhi High Court.
Supreme Court observed that in cases where the marital relationship has broken down irretrievably, where there is a long separation and absence of cohabitation, then continuation of such a ‘marriage' would only mean giving sanction to cruelty which each is inflicting on the other.
Madras High Court said that after divorce when the spouses have ceased to be husband and wife, proprietary right of both the spouses also get affected.
Given the expansive amplitude of power under Article 142(1) of the Constitution, the exercise of power must be legitimate, and clamours for caution, mindful of the danger that arises from adopting an individualistic approach as to the exercise of the Constitutional power, observed the Supreme Court
Delhi High Court observed that an ex parte decree of divorce also it shall be lawful for either party to the marriage to marry again if no appeal is filed against such decree within the period of limitation.
The Supreme Court also held that the mandatory waiting period of 6 months for divorce by mutual consent can be dispensed subject to requirements and conditions laid down in previous Supreme Court judgments.
Madras High Court held that the wife is entitled to institute and maintain matrimonial proceedings, DVC proceedings and any other proceedings under the relevant Statutes in Indian Courts having jurisdiction for appropriate reliefs.
The Supreme Court held that merely because either of the parties have disputed a factum of paternity, it does not mean that the Court should direct DNA test or such other test to resolve the controversy. Only in exceptional and deserving cases, where such a test becomes indispensable to resolve the controversy the Court can direct such test.
Technology has advanced so much that regular interactions between two individuals living in different countries or even continents can easily be maintained through video calls and video conferencing. In fact, in the last three years, when the world was grappling with the Covid pandemic, interactions through video calls have become the new norm. Even when Courts today are functioning fully physically, lawyers are being permitted to join through video conferencing only because of the advancements in technology.
The Karnataka High Court strictly admonished the petitioner for abusing every jurisdiction of law but refused to impose exemplary costs as the same would only increase the agony of the petitioner, whose marriage was annulled albeit with consent.
Bombay High Court: In a petition filed by the husband challenging on the ground of legitimacy of the child born out of
A Family Court order allowed a husband to seek mobile tower record details of the petitioner’s mobile number, so that he can prove the existence of illicit relations between the petitioner and his wife. The Karnataka HC sternly quashed the same citing violation of petitioner’s Right to Privacy
Madras High Court held that the contempt petition is not maintainable and barred by limitation. Thus, dismissed contempt proceedings against the presiding officer of Family Court as he was not the presiding officer when the order was passed.
Telangana High Court: In a case where the offences alleged against the petitioners under Section 498-A of the Penal Code,
Kerala High Court: In a review petition arising from an appeal filed by the husband challenging a divorce decree granted to a