Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
This report covers the Supreme Court’s Never Reported Judgment, on stridhan, dating back to the year 1954.
The Court found that insofar as Section 406, IPC was concerned, no cognizable offence was visible on the face of the record. Furthermore, charges under S. 6 of Dowry Prohibition Act were not made out either, against the appellants
,
The complainant was pitted against the might of petitioners, i.e., husband, father-in-law, and three sisters-in-law, who were abusing and ill-treating her on petty issues and their sole aim was to extort money from her and her parents.
The High Court while upholding the quantum of compensation, agreed with the observation of the Trial Court that at the age of 55 years, the wife had lost her prospects vis-à-vis her personal life after being subjected to domestic violence from 1994-2008.
In generality of marriages, the wife bears and rears children and minds the home. She thereby frees her husband for his economic activities. Since it is her performance of her function which enables the husband to perform his duties, thus she is entitled to share in its fruits.
Bombay High Court: Sandeep K. Shinde, J., examines whether an application under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act on behalf of
Family Court No. 3, Pune: M.R. Kale, J., addressed a petition for divorce by mutual consent under Section 28 of the Special
Punjab and Haryana High Court: Jaishree Thakur, J., allowed a petition filed under Section 482 CrPC and held that, “Disgruntled wives use the
Delhi High Court: A Bench of Sunil Gaur, J. quashed an FIR registered against the petitioners for offences punishable under Sections 498-A,
Supreme Court: While dealing with a question whether the retention of stridhan by the husband or any other family members is a