Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
In the instant case, the Court had to consider whether maintenance proceedings under S. 488 of CrPC before Trial Court can be quashed on the ground of husband’s pleading that he had already divorced his wife.
A fascicular reading of Sections 125(1) and 125(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 clearly demonstrates that if husband wilfully and intentionally neglects to provide maintenance to his wife then she can approach before the court seeking maintenance.
“It is not the case of petitioners that in case if marriage is not performed, then they are still interested to live in live-in relationship. It is also not the case of petitioners that petitioner No.1 would accept Muslim religion.”
“It is very easy for the married man to walk out of the live in relationship and in such case the court cannot shut their eyes to the vulnerable condition of the survivor of such distressful live in relationship and children born out of such relationship.”
DCDRC observed that the video was not just a collection of images and sounds but a vessel for the heartbeats of a family’s collective journey, carrying the laughter, tears, and love of a day that marked the beginning of a new chapter in their lives.
The High Court opined that taking care of children is shrouded by countless responsibilities and necessary expenditure from time to time and the husband cannot preposterously contend that the wife is lazing around and not earning money to take care of the children.
The Calcutta High Court stated that the documents presented by the petitioner which mention her as wife are mere declarations, subject to proof, if challenged.
Kerala High Court explained that “Cruelty consists of acts which are dangerous to life, limb or health. Cruelty may be physical or mental.”
Sexual violence against a woman should invite no tolerance, however, manipulating the system by the parties to a case under Section 376 IPC would equally need to be dealt with a stern hand and serious efforts should be made to address and remedy failings within the criminal justice system and through our society.
The High Court found that a father’s anxiety to meet his daughter was dubbed as criminal trespass and intimidation, however, these offences were loosely laid against the father.
“Though justice has got to be administered in accordance with the law enacted by the Legislature. The concept of justice is elastic and is imperceptible. There can be no hard and fast line constricting the power of the High Courts to do substantial justice.”
“Right to privacy of Aadhaar number holder preserves the autonomy of the individual’s right to privacy which has been conferred primacy and admits of no exception under the statutory scheme”.
“A choice and will of a woman to exercise residential choice at her natal home should not be viewed through patriarchal prism to deny her the residential status there”
“The very fact that the wife had not only claimed but also accepted pendente lite maintenance during the appeal from the first husband fortifies that the marriage was not finally dissolved.”
The impugned order held that the fathers of the parties were real brothers and so, the marriage between the parties fell within the meaning of sub-clause (f) of Section 3 of Hindu Marriage Act, which defines the terms of degrees of prohibited relationships.
“Article 21 of the Constitution gives Protection of Life and Personal Liberty to all persons whereby it is the inherent right of every individual to exercise personal choices, especially in matter relating to marriage.”
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.