Calcutta High Court set aside the impugned order and modified the maintenance amount to Rs. 6,000 per month.
“Person who does not do equity with others and even to the life companion, cannot approach the Court to seek approval of his relation under the umbrella of Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”
Delhi High Court observed that an ex parte decree of divorce also it shall be lawful for either party to the marriage to marry again if no appeal is filed against such decree within the period of limitation.
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.
Supreme Court: The Division Bench of L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai*, JJ., upheld the impugned judgment of the High Court wherein
Supreme Court: While deciding a case of a matrimonial dispute where the marriage never took off from the first day and was
Bombay High Court: The Division Bench of A.S. Chandurkar and G.A. Sanap, JJ. addressed whether prior to the decision on divorce petition,
Bombay High Court: Manish Pitale, J., expressed while addressing the present application that, “Second marriage cannot come within the definition of domestic
Jharkhand High Court: Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J., inter alia, reversed the conviction of the second wife (of the husband of the complainant-first
Allahabad High Court: Sudhir Agarwal, J., found a government servant to be guilty of the offence of bigamy. The instant petition was filed
Madras High Court: RMT. Teeka Raman, J., while addressing a petition observed that, “A plea of customary divorce is a valid defence
Karnataka High Court: A Division Bench of Krishna S. Dixit and P. Krishna Bhat, JJ., held that, “Though contracting a second marriage by
Bombay High Court: A.S. Kilor, J., held that contravention of the provision of Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 does not
Patna High Court: A Division Bench of Hemant Kumar Srivastava and Prabhat Kumar Singh, JJ. rejected a letters patent appeal on the
Patna High Court: The Three-Judge Bench of Ashwani Kumar Singh, Birendra Kumar and Anil Kumar Upadhyay, JJ. disposed of an appeal arising
Supreme Court: The Bench comprising of S.A. Bobde and L. Nageswara Rao, JJ. allowed an appeal filed against the judgment of Delhi
Himachal Pradesh High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J. allowed the family pension to be paid to