Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The phraseology “right to sue survive” used under Order 22 Rule 1 means right to seek relief. The general rule is that cause of action whatsoever existing in favour or against a person at the time of his death survives to or against his legal representatives.
In the peculiar facts of the present case, taking recourse to law, cannot be, by any stretch of imagination, labeled as an instance of cruelty.
Kerala High Court noted that the Family Court had no jurisdiction to entertain such a claim for divorce in the first place because the enactment was made for resolving disputes related to family affairs and marriage recognized by law.
At this stage of bail, it can hardly be said with any conviction that the promise of marriage made by the petitioner to the prosecutrix is ex-facie false; and that it has been made in bad faith, with no intention of being adhered to when it was given.
The attitude towards early love relationships, especially adolescent love, had to be scrutinized in the backdrop of their real-life situations to understand their actions in each situation because the teenagers who try to imitate romantic culture of films and novels, remain unaware about the laws and the age of consent.
Madras High Court opined that this is a fit case to refer the matter to the Bar Council of Tamil Nadu to initiate disciplinary action against the advocates who performed the marriage.
The Government was directed to consider the Report made by an expert panel in 2015 which had recommended recognition of same-sex relationships.
Madhya Pradesh High Court observed that “Only a false promise to marry made with an intention to deceive a woman would vitiate the woman’s consent being obtained under misconception of fact, but mere breach of promise cannot be said to be a false promise.”
Born on 10-02-1962 in Hisar, Justice Surya Kant, has the distinction to be appointed as the youngest Advocate General of Haryana. Before being elevated as a Supreme Court Judge, Justice Surya Kant served as a Judge in the Punjab and Haryana High Court and as Chief Justice of Himanchal Pradesh High Court.
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.
Unfounded criminal charges and long drawn criminal prosecution can have serious consequences. A person subjected to such litigation suffers immense mental trauma, humiliation and monetary loss.
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 from wedlock,
Jharkhand High court held that amarried woman cannot invoke section 376(2)(n) of the IPC, after establishing a relationship with man other than her husband
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
Telangana High Court: In a case where the offences alleged against the petitioners under Section 498-A of the Penal Code,
by Sanjay Vashishtha †
Cite as: 2022 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 80
Karnataka High Court: While deciding the instant application seeking regular bail for offences under the provisions of Prohibition of Child
Bombay High Court: In an appeal filed by wife challenging the judgment and decree dated 22-11-2005, passed by the Family