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 out of
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
Allahabad High Court: In a bail application under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) filed by the
Bombay High Court: In an appeal filed by husband challenging the judgment and decree of restitution of conjugal rights and
Bombay High Court: In a petition filed by Umakant Bondre/ applicant 1 (former father-in-law of respondent 1) challenging the order
Madras High Court: In an application seeking the appointment of the applicant as a fit and proper person to be
Karnataka High Court: In a case filed by the petitioner-mother (‘petitioner 2') seeking acceptance on her pending passport application for
Allahabad High Court: Saurabh Shyam Shamshery, J. dismissed a habeas corpus petition holding that the certificates issued by Arya Samaj
Kerala High Court: In a divorce case where the Family Court had refused to hear the case on priority for early disposal,
Gujarat High Court: Nirzar S. Desai, J. quashed an FIR and its consequential proceedings which were registered for the offences punishable under
Allahabad High Court: The Division Bench of Sunita Agarwal and Om Prakash Shukla, JJ. dismissed and appeal on the admission stage itself
Kerala High Court: In a case relating to talaq as per Muslim personal law and bigamy, A. Muhamed Mustaque, J.