In the judgment of the case – Joydeep Majumdar v. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar delivered on February 26, 2021, a 3-judge bench of the Supreme Court consisting of Justices Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Dinesh Maheshwari and Hrishikesh Roy, has ruled that in a case w..
In a latest, landmark, laudable and learned judgment titled Laxmibai Chandaragi B & Anr. vs. State of Karnataka & Ors. in Writ Petition [Criminal] No. 359/2020 delivered just recently on February 8, 2021, the Supreme Court minced just no words to ma..
In the Order passed in the matrimonial case- Shruti Kaushal Bisht v. Kaushal R. Bisht on November 6, 2020, Justice V. Ramasubramanian, at the Supreme Court, has considered that the claim of the wife Shruti that she is not receiving maintenance, has n..
In a well-written, well-balanced, well-analysed, well-articulated and well-reasoned judgment under the Domestic Violence Act, a three Judge Bench of the Apex Court comprising of Justices Ashok Bhushan, R Subhash Reddy and MR Shah have ruled in no unc..
Let me not hesitate to begin by first and foremost stating that I very strongly feel that the time is ripe now for making many radical changes in our penal laws and treating woman on the same platform as man and as is repeatedly demanded most strenu..
The Bombay High Court held that both the Courts below had rightly held that the plaintiff cannot be held adopted son of Kundanbai and he has been rightly denied his succession to the properties of Kundanbai...
The Supreme Court rejected the Special Leave petition filed by the husband and observed that For the last two decades, Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, including the explanation referred to in subsection (1) thereof, has been consisten..
The Court discussed Sections 4, 6, 9 and 11 of HAMA and then carefully gave the judgment. It held that the scheme of HAMA is not to make a child of 15 years of age or above fir to be taken in adoption. The exception however is made in favour of custo..
Since the factors in favour of Respondent are weightier than those in favour of the Appellant which have been noted above. The custody was given to the Respondent/ Mother. Since the mother was a school teacher, the Court ordered to get the child admi..
The Court agreed with the findings given by the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court came tothe conclusion that the case property was sold...
The appeals were dismissed subject to the partial modification of the order passed by the District Judge and High Court...
The Court held that “the minor on attaining majority did not ratify the sale deed executed by his defacto guardian with the defendant and entered into a sale deed with the appellant...
The Court upheld the decision of the District Judge and revision was dismissed stating “That case is distinguishable inasmuch as the parties were Mohammadans and Section 13 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 did not apply there.By virtu..
The High Court allowed the appeal stating “Further, as regards the contention of learned counsel for respondent No. 2, that mother of petitioner had failed to provide any documentary proof to the effect that she is the only guardian of the child, the..
The Supreme Court held that the continuous cohabitation of man and woman as husband and wife may raise the presumption of marriage, but the presumption which may be drawn from long cohabitation is a rebuttable one and if there are circumstances which..
The marriage of a woman in accordance with the Hindu rites with a man having legal spouse, after coming into force of HMA is a complete nullity in the eye of law and she is not entitled to the benefit of Section 125 of CrPC...
The case first went to the trial court, where it was held that all the properties are joint family properties of the deceased Ramasami Konar and his disqualified son, (The first defendant), but since he had murdered his father, he is not entitled to ..
After referring to all the evidences of adultery and cruelty, the husband was declared guilty of adultery and cruelty. The cruelty which entitles her to a judicial separation, even if he was not guilty of adultery. The manner in which the husband had..
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal & withheld the decision of HC in not granting divorce. The court observed that the constant nagging & inappropriate behavior of the wife has certainly caused mental agony to the husband which amounts to cruelty. ..
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It was observed by the court that the reason for the wife living separately from her husband is justified based on the wrongs done by the husband. Also, the wife is ready to live with him on a reasonable condit..