“Scrupulous adherence to Order VII Rule 11 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 can curtail litigation like the present one, which aside from clogging the litigation also keeps the parties embroiled in litigation with a false hope of some relief.”
The courts should make all efforts to try and dispose of matrimonial matters within 1 year so that in the event of granting such a decree, the parties may re-structure their lives.
Noting the husband’s interest in watching videos by Sisters of Brahmakumari, which eventually led to non-consummation of his marriage, the Court was of the view that this situation does not fall under the scheme of S. 498-A, IPC.
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.
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
Parsi Chief Matrimonial Court, Bombay: G.S. Kulkarni, J., expressed that, there is no provision under legislations, that if a marriage between the
Patna High Court: The question before Prabhat Kumar Singh J., for contemplation, was “Whether the candidate has violated the instructions in the