Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“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.”
Delhi High Court mentioned that children born from the wedlock will be free to pursue their legal rights in accordance with the law. The parties have entered a settlement only regarding their rights and titles leaving open the the rights, titles, and interests of the children to pursue their legal remedies as per law.
The Jharkhand High Court reiterated the object of Section 498-A of IPC to punish cruelty by husband and his relatives.
The Court was considering a case where a wife had set herself ablaze after having telephonic conversation with her husband who refused to come back and live with her and asked her to go from where she had come.
Delhi High Court observed that an inadequately drafted agreement will be one that fails to include essential elements such as the name of all the relevant parties, the terms outlining the conditions of settlement, and the consequences in the event of non-compliance or breach.
Uttaranchal High Court: While dismissing the instant appeal against the order dated 25-08-2022 passed by Family Court whereby the wife’s
Supreme Court: In a complex case where both the parties claimed to be disabled to get the matrimonial case transferred to the