Fresh stories, announcements and offers about Divorce Lawyer, Lawyer, Legal services, straight from our business.
The women need to be careful about the fact that these strict provisions of law in their hands are beneficial legislations for their welfare and not means to chastise, threaten, domineer or extort from their husbands, Supreme Court.
Matrimonial Law - Dissolution of Marriage - The appellant-wife sought dissolution of marriage on grounds of cruelty - The respondent-husband did not appear in Family Court or the High Court - The main issue was whether the appellant-wife had proven cruelty by the respondent-husband to warrant dissolution of marriage - The appellant-wife claimed deep anguish due to the respondent's conduct and absence of conjugal relationship, supported by her testimony and that of her brother-in-law - The appeal was dismissed, with the court not finding sufficient evidence of cruelty, despite the respondent-husband's absence from legal proceedings - The court found the allegations of cruelty improbable and noted the absence of any protest or evidence from the appellant-wife regarding the alleged cruelty - The court referenced previous judgments and the lack of evidence for physical incapacity or valid reason for withdrawal from matrimonial duties - The High Court upheld the Family Court's decision, dismissing the appeal due to lack of demonstration of cruelty by the respondent-husband - The appellant-wife was advised to seek mutual consent for divorce if desired Nibedita vs -Biswa MATA 68/21 02/05/24 [ SINHA JJ ] [ ORISSA HIGH COURT ]
Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act Section 6 - BNS 2023, Section 528 Writ of Habeas Corpus Release of detenue son aged 08 months from illegal custody of father - Held, matrimonial dispute arose between both parties in which petitioner was allegedly beaten up and thrown out from matrimonial house and child was retained by father - Both parties are currently residing in Gurdaspur - When parents are in conflict, child's well-being should remain paramount concern - Court must ensure that child is not treated as object to be passed back and forth but rather person whose stability and security must carefully be protected - Child, especially at a tender age, has fundamental right to love, care and protection of both parents - This is not only essential for child's emotional and psychological development but is also recognized as basic human right - Thus, fact that child is of tender age of 08 months, till a decision is taken by competent Court, custody of child shall remain with petitioner-mother - Therefore, direction to Respondents No.2 and 3 to ensure that custody of minor child is handed over by father to mother ,Neelu vs STATE OF PUNJAB CRWP 7646/24 10/09/24 [ PUNJAB HARYANA HIGH COURT ]
- Sections 307, 308 and 325 IPC The case involves appellant, who was accused of hitting the complainant with his car Reduction in sentence — The main issue was whether appellant intentionally hit the complainant, causing grievous injury —The appellant's counsel argued for leniency, citing the long duration since the incident and the appellant's good conduct over the years —The State had no objection to reducing the appellant's sentence to the period already served, provided the conviction was upheld — The court reduced the appellant's sentence to the period already undergone, considering the long duration since the incident and the appellant's good conduct —The court noted the appellant's age, good conduct, and the fact that no other cases were registered against him since the incident The court emphasized the principles of justice and rehabilitation, considering the appellant’s behavior and the time elapsed since the incident —The appeal was disposed of, reducing the appellant's sentence to the period already served, and the bail bonds were canceled NARESH vs STATE CRLA 223/09 23/09/24 [ DELHI HIGH COURT ]
Dispute over Custody of child The case involves a custody dispute over a two-year-old child whose mother died unnaturally — The child's father and paternal grandparents sought custody, while the maternal relatives had taken the child without the father's consent — Whether the High Court was justified in disturbing the _ child's custody without considering the child's welfare and best interests The appellants argued that the High Court should not have entertained the Habeas Corpus petition and should have considered the child's welfare before disturbing custody — The respondents argued that the father and paternal grandparents had legal precedence for custody and that the child was in illegal custody with the maternal relatives — The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, emphasizing the child's welfare and directing the appellants to allow the father and grandparents to meet the child regularly — The Court highlighted the importance of the child's welfare and the need for a proper inquiry into the child's best interests before disturbing custody — The Court noted that Habeas Corpus is an extraordinary remedy and should be exercised with discretion, especially in cases involving child custody — The appeal was partly allowed, and the Court directed the appellants to facilitate regular meetings between the child and her father and grandparents, while the custody issue is would be decided by a competent court under the Guardians and Wards Act. Som vs STATE OF MP.
HIGHLY QUALIFIED AND EARNING WIFE NOT DISCLOSING HER TRUE INCOME WON'T BE ENTITLED TO MAINTENANCE FROM HUSBAND: DELHI HIGH COURT The Delhi High Court has said that a wife cannot be entitled to maintenance by the husband when she is highly qualified and has been earning even after her marriage, though she does not truthfully disclose her true income. While upholding a family court order dismissing a wife’s application for maintenance under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, a division bench of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna said: “ We find that in the present case it is not only that the appellant is highly qualified and has an earning capacity, but in fact she has been earning, though has not been inclined to truthfully disclose her true income. Such a person cannot be held entitled to maintenance.” The court added, “Pertinently, the claim for maintenance by the appellant under the provisions of Protection of Women against Domestic Violence Act has also met the same fate and the maintenance has been declined to her. We, therefore, find no merit in the Appeal which is hereby dismissed.” The family court had declined to grant any pendent lite maintenance to the wife in view of his qualifications and that she had been working even after the marriage. In her appeal, the wife sought interim maintenance of Rs.35,000 per month from the husband, in addition to litigation expenses of Rs.55,000. Title: X v. Y Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 82
Section 125 CRPC Maintenance The petitioner and respondent, married in 2010, have two daughters The respondent left the matrimonial home in 2019 and filed for judicial separation, custody, and alimony The main issue is the petitioner's obligation to pay school fees and other expenses for the daughters, who are studying in an expensive boarding school in Dehradun The petitioner argues financial incapacity to pay the high fees and claims the respondent's demands are excessive The respondent contends that the petitioner is wealthy and capable of paying the fees, emphasizing the importance of the daughters’ education — The court directed the petitioner to reimburse school fees and pay _ future educational expenses, rejecting the petitioner's plea to withdraw his earlier commitment — The court noted the petitioner's previous agreement to pay the fees and highlighted the importance of the daughters' education — The court referenced Section 26 of the Hindu Marriage Act, which allows orders for the maintenance and education of minor children during matrimonial proceedings — The petition was dismissed, and the petitioner was ordered to continue paying the educational expenses as previously agreed Vikram vs Priyanka SCA 20117/23 22/08/24 [ DOSH JJ ] [ GUJARAT HIGH COURT ] Best Lawyer for Matrimonial. Best divorce lawyer in delhi Best DV lawyer in delhi.
Abhimanyu Hazarika In a judgment of significant implications, the general principle of law that 'bail is rule and jail is exception' applies even to money laundering cases under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), the Supreme Court held on Wednesday while granting bail to one Prem Prakash, an alleged aide of Jharkhand Chief Minister Hemant Soren in a money laundering case. A Bench of Justices BR Gavai and KV Viswanathan held that liberty of individual is always the rule and deprivation of the same by procedure established by law, is the exception. The stringent conditions for bail under PMLA will to override this principle, the Court made it clear. "Relying on the judgment in Manish Sisodia, we have said that even in PMLA, bail is a rule and jail the exception. All that S 45 specifies is the conditions to be met for bail. Liberty of the individual is always the rule and deprivation, by procedure established by law, the exception. Twin test does not take away this principle," the Court said reading out its judgment. Pertinently, the Court also held that confessions made by a PMLA accused to an investigating office will not ordinarily be admissible as evidence and the bar against such confessions under Section 25 of Indian Evidence Act will apply. "We hold statements of the appellant if found to be incriminating will be hit by Section 25.
Section 138 Dishonour of cheque The relevant facts of the present case are that four cheques issued by the respondent were dishonoured for want of insufficient funds — If dishonour of a cheque has once snowballed into a cause of action, it is not permissible for a payee to create another cause of action with the same cheque — Presentation of cheque by the complainant after the issuance of notice to the accused was not permissible for initiating proceedings u/s 138 of the N.I. Act — Court is further of the opinion that Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 does not prescribe any format of a notice. Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 provides that the payee or holder in the due course of the cheque should only make a demand for payment of said amount by giving a notice in writing to the drawer of the cheque within fifteen days of receipt of information by him from the bank regarding the return of cheque as unpaid — A notice for demand of payment is issued then the cause of action and limitation for filing a complaint under Section 138 commences GALORE vs SANJAY CRLP 475/12 25/09/12 [ DELHI HIGH COURT ] धारा 138 चेक का अनादर वर्तमान मामले के प्रासंगिक तथ्य यह हैं कि प्रतिवादी द्वारा जारी किए गए चार चेक अपर्याप्त धन की कमी के कारण अनादरित किए गए थे - यदि चेक का अनादर एक बार कार्रवाई के कारण के रूप में सामने आ गया है, तो भुगतानकर्ता के लिए उसी चेक के साथ कार्रवाई का एक और कारण बनाना स्वीकार्य नहीं है ।
The top court overturned the man's conviction in a 2013 case, involving allegations that 30 cartons of Pentazocine (a painkiller) were transported without a licence. The Supreme Court on Thursday acquitted a man who was booked nearly 11 years ago in a case filed under the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS Act) [Ajay Kumar Gupta v. Union of India]. A Bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Augustine George Masih noted that there was nothing to indicate the man's involvement in an alleged plot to transport 30 cartons of Fortwin injections (Pentazocine, a painkiller) without a licence. "There is no recovery from the appellant of any incriminating material. There is no evidence to show that the contraband tried to be transported by accused no.1 by railway parcel was delivered by or on behalf of the appellant to accused no.1. There is no evidence of any conspiracy against the appellant. Therefore, the respondent has not established the offences punishable under Sections 22(c) and 29 of the NDPS Act against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt," the Court said. The appellant had been accused of handing over 30 cartons of Pentazocine to a co-accused, which was then sought to be transported across State lines. The appellant was running a medical shop in Patna when the first accused allegedly approached him to place an order for 40 cartons of pentazocine (Fortwin injections).
Supreme Court It is high time that police officers across the country are imparted proper training so as to understand the fine distinction between the offences. The Apex Court on Friday lamented the fact that even after 162 years of the Indian Penal Code, being in force, the police and the courts have not been able to understand the fine distinction between the offences of criminal breach of trust and cheating [Delhi Race (1940) Limited and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh]. Highlighting the sad state of affairs where police officers are mechanically registering first information reports (FIRs) for both offences on a mere allegation of dishonesty or fraud, a Bench of Justice JB Pardiwala and Justice Manoj Misra called for training of police officers across the country. "it has become a common practice for the police officers to routinely and mechanically proceed to register an FIR for both the offences i.e. criminal breach of trust and cheating on a mere allegation of some dishonesty or fraud, without any proper application of mind. It is high time that the police officers across the country are imparted proper training in law so as to understand the fine distinction between the offence of cheating viz-a-viz criminal breach of trust. Both offences are independent and distinct. The two offences cannot coexist simultaneously in the same set of facts. They are antithetical to each other,"
