Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Delhi High Court: Suresh Kumar Kait, J., while addressing a criminal revision petition concerning a matrimonial dispute expressed that: “..husband cannot wriggle
Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of Sadhana S. Jadhav and N.J. Jamadar, JJ., while addressing the present matter, expressed that: Where
Delhi High Court: Prathiba M. Singh, J., dismissed an application filed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act on finding no
Delhi High Court: Subramonium Prasad, J., while addressing the present revision petition expressed that: “A court in revision considers the material only
Delhi High Court: Suresh Kumar Kait, J., dismissed a petition seeking enhancement of maintenance granted to a wife. The instant petition was
Central Information Commission (CIC): Neeraj Kumar Gupta (Information Commissioner) held that: “Since filing of the Income Tax Returns by an individual with
Allahabad High Court: Raj Beer Singh, J., observed that: “The object of the Section 125 CrPC being to afford a swift remedy,
Bombay High Court: Mangesh S. Patil, J., in the present application directed the husband to pay an amount of Rs 10,000 towards alimony
Gujarat High Court: The Division Bench of J.B. Pardiwala and Vireshkumar B. Mayani, JJ., while addressing the issue of grant of permanent alimony
Delhi High Court: Anu Malhotra, J., addressed a matter wherein the husband and wife reach a settlement and the wife agrees to
Allahabad High Court: The Division Bench of Pankaj Naqvi and Vivek Agarwal, JJ., observed that, Right to live with a person of his/her
Kerala High Court: A Full Bench of A.M. Shaffique, Sunil Thomas and Gopinath, JJ., held that there is no limitation period for wife/divorced wife
Central Information Commission (CIC): Neeraj Kumar Gupta (Information Commissioner) decided whether disclosure of income tax returns of the husband to wife under RTI
Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a peculiar case of illegal detention of a woman who happens to be the petitioner’s wife,
Himachal Pradesh High Court: Jyotsna Rewal Dua J., disposed off the petition without any interference with impugned orders. The facts of the
Bombay High Court: Nitin W. Sambre, J., while addressing a petition with regard to grant of maintenance held that under Section 19 of
Gujarat High Court: A.P. Thaker, J., dismissed an application that was filed on being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order of maintenance
Allahabad High Court: Dr Kaushal Jayendra Thaker, J., decided upon the prayer of protection being sought by a boy and girl living together
Uttaranchal High Court: A Division Bench of Ravi Malimath and Narayan Singh Dhanik, JJ., dismissed and appeal which was filed aggrieved by
Bombay High Court: A Division Bench of Ujjal Bhuyan and Milind N. Jadhav, JJ., while addressing an issue with regard to the appointment