Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“The object of awarding interim maintenance is only to ensure that the wife has sufficient income to enable her to maintain herself and the said sustenance is not mere survival, but should be on the same lines of a comfortable lifestyle that she would have had in the matrimonial home.”
“Reading of the complaint, filed in the present case, would go to show that, necessary ingredients to attract the alleged offence is not found.”
“She did not use her sufferings for gain of sympathy, instead she channelled it inward, reflecting the Hindu ideal of the woman as Shakti – not weak, but submissive and powerful in her endurance and grace.”
‘The petitioner being a 5-year-old minor cannot be compelled to be deported to Australia. The right against such deportation is protected under Article 21 of the Constitution.’
In the present case, allegations are by way of written words before the police and before the judicial authorities, thus, such imputation will amount to defamation when the case does not fall within either of the ten exceptions to Section 499.
“Every dispute, quarrel or altercation arising from the matrimonial life are not criminal offence. It will take colour of Criminal law only when there are no alternatives for the wife but to put an end to her life, because of the harassment.”
“Merely admitting evidence on record is not proof of a fact-in-issue or a relevant fact… Admitting evidence is mere inclusion of evidence in record, to be assessed on a comprehensive set of factors, parameters and aspects, in the discretion of the court.”
The petitioner-husband and Respondent 2-wife agreed to some conditions, including that the petitioner must hand over all documents and certificates belonging to Respondent 2, currently at his residence in India and in the USA, to Respondent 2.
“Without demanding permanent alimony in the written statement or by a separate application, Trial Court would not have granted permanent alimony to the respondent/wife.”
A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from all High Courts this week.
“…it would not be proper if she is forced to continue with the pregnancy which she does not want, as the same would certainly seriously affect her future course of life and also the life of her child.”
“Where a person is in settled possession of property, even on the assumption that they had no right to remain on the property, they cannot be dispossessed by the owner of the property except by recourse to law.”- Supreme Court in Krishna Ram Mahale v. Shobha Venkat Rao, (1989) 4 SCC 131.
While the husband and his witnesses made statements stating that the wife had been prescribed medicines for her mental ill health, however, they did not demonstrate the nature of her illness, or the extent of affliction suffered by her.
Allahabad High Court: In a writ petition challenging the communication issued by the Regional Passport Officer, whereby he has been informed that
“The writ of habeas corpus is a prerogative writ, an extraordinary remedy, evolved under the common law and incorporated in our constitutional law, having the objective to protect and safeguard individual liberty.”
Where the wife is set to implicate the entire family of the husband in a criminal case, it is to be expected that through her lawyer she would get a complaint properly drafted making some specific allegations against each of the family members.
Howsoever abysmal the differences maybe between the spouses, but in no realm can the act of the aggrieved spouse of igniting animosity and hostility in the minor child in an attempt to use the child as a weapon to get even with their spouse, could be justifiable.
The Calcutta High Court recognised the issue involved in the present matter transcendence beyond a mere legal dispute, as it involved the petitioner’s fundamental rights.
Bombay High Court was of the view that “continuation of criminal proceedings against the petitioner would be tantamount to abuse of process of law.”
“In fact, DNA test is intended to rebut the `conclusive proof’ provided under Section 112 of the Evidence Act.”