Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
The Court held that a woman has got fundamental and absolute right to make decisions concerning her career, finances, etc. and a husband cannot compel or coerce her to live according to his wishes and expectations.
The Supreme Court has issued detailed directions to tackle delays in dowry and cruelty cases. From framing charges within 60–90 days and
The latest set of directives issued by the Supreme Court in pursuance of its December 2025 directions intends to address the systemic delay and ineffective implementation attending prosecutions under Sections 304-B, Section 498-A, Penal Code, 1860 and the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.
The three-day Special Lok Adalat under SAMADHAN SAMAROH 2026 listed 3,285 cases and settled/disposed of 1,664 cases, with 48 additional cases resolved through mediation, taking the total disposals to 1,712.
More than 600 cases were listed for settlement before 16 Special Lok Adalat Benches of the Supreme Court on the first day of the Special Lok Adalat, with over 400 cases being amicably settled through dialogue between the parties.
The Court held that the marriage was dead for all practical purposes, warranting to be nullified under Article 142 to grant a decree of divorce.
The Court warned that permitting reopening of quashing orders on the basis of subsequent matrimonial disputes would fundamentally defeat the object underlying exercise of jurisdiction under Section 528 BNSS.
“If both the giver and the taker are penalised, no giver of dowry can be expected to come forward to make a complaint, being under the threat of being prosecuted himself.”
The applicant-husband first agreed in Court to compensate the complainant-wife for the stridhan, but backed out later
The Circuit Court had granted the divorce decree on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage, which is not a recognised ground under Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA). However, taking note that the parties have been separated for 18 years, Supreme Court exercising its Art. 142 powers, decided to dissolve the marriage.
“In case where necessary pleadings are there and no declaration is sought regarding illegitimacy of the child and the issue only relates to adultery of the wife, then in appropriate cases, a DNA test can be ordered, if there are sufficient pleadings of non-access”.
“At the stage of consideration of interim maintenance, this Court is neither expected nor required to embark upon a detailed inquiry or conduct a mini trial to resolve such disputes conclusively.”
by K.P. Hemanth Kumar* and K.P. Pramodh Kumar**
“The Court explained that mere general allegations of harassment and cruelty without pointing out the specific details would not be sufficient to continue criminal proceedings against any person”.
Stay informed on the latest Supreme Court judgments of July 2025 on Bihar’s Electoral Roll revision, recording of spousal conversations; Tribal woman’s rights over ancestral property; Guidelines on collection of DNA evidence and mental health of college students. Explore notable rulings shaping the legal landscape.
“Spousal communications were deemed privileged under Section 122 of Evidence Act for the purpose of protecting the sanctity of the marital relationship, and not for safeguarding individual privacy rights.”
The term “cruelty” is subject to rather cruel misuse by the parties, and cannot be established simpliciter without specific instances, to say the least. The tendency of roping these sections, without mentioning any specific dates, time or incident, weakens the case of the prosecutions, and casts serious suspicion on the viability of the version of a Complainant.
The Court stated that the school cannot deny the issuance of TC to the child, who has sought admission in other school. In the event of delay in issuance of TC, even a disciplinary action can be taken against the Headmaster or In-Charge of the school.
A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from all High Courts this week.
The Court stated that it is baffling that FIR propped up in India, especially considering that the wife has never pursued any criminal complaint against the petitioners in India or in Australia in eight years of marriage.