Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
This comprehensive roundup brings together the Court’s most impactful rulings and judicial developments from the month.
The Court opined that impugned provisions do not warrant judicial interference, because it is well-settled law that courts refrain from intervening in matters of legislative policy or mandate
The allegations submitted by Respondent 2 cannot amount to cruelty under Section 498-A of Penal Code, 1860 as each person shall act in his own way and the said act independently shall amount to cruelty.
Once the mind of a spouse is corrupted to resort to a false prosecution against a spouse, it is certain that the spouse has lost all reasonableness and rationality to maintain solemnity of the marriage.
The Court stated that Applicants 5 to 8, being maternal uncles and their wives, are only instrumental in introducing Applicant 1’a marriage proposal to the complainant and it cannot be said that they knew about his condition.
No separate category is carved out as an exception to the normal Rules of remission provided under Section 4321 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 for a Police personnel committing heinous crime of murdering his pregnant wife.
To apply Section 3061 of the Penal Code, 1860, it is expected of prosecution to demonstrate that there is live link/active role played by appellant in instigating the suicide.
“By way of judicial proceeding, an offence under Section 498-A of the Penal Code, 1860 can be compounded, but in the statute the offence has been made non-compoundable.”
Noting the husband’s interest in watching videos by Sisters of Brahmakumari, which eventually led to non-consummation of his marriage, the Court was of the view that this situation does not fall under the scheme of S. 498-A, IPC.
It was stated that decision of the co-ordinate Bench of the High Court in Naresh Gundyal v. State on same issue, defeats the very object of S. 498-A, IPC and Domestic Violence Act, 2005.
Delhi High Court: Stating that, cases under Section 376 of Penal Code, 1860 should not be quashed and should not be taken
Bombay High Court: Vibha Kankanwadi, J., held that, if a husband files a divorce petition that cannot be taken as an act
Chhattisgarh High Court: Sanjay S. Agrawal, J., reversed the judgment of the trial court and granted divorce in an application filed by
Allahabad High Court: Rahul Chaturvedi, J., noted that a lady soon after coming to know that her husband got married in clandestine
Allahabad High Court: Noting the brutality with wife a 22-year-old lady and mother of a one year’s infant child in causing her
Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of V.K. Jadhav and Shrikant D. Kulkarni, JJ., reiterated that an alleged girlfriend cannot be arrayed
Delhi High Court: Mukta Gupta, J., decided whether a settlement of parties wherein an accused and his family members who subjected his
Madhya Pradesh High Court: Sujoy Paul, J., held that the pendency of matrimonial cases alone cannot be a ground to decline the
Allahabad High Court: Dr Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J., decided an issue with regard to the habeas corpus petition for custody of a