Mumbai Court asks gay man to pay his wife for Domestic Violence: A gay man has been ordered by a sessions court to pay interim support to his wife, who had complained that they had not been able to consummate their marriage because he was having relationships with other men. The court noted that domestic violence includes not only physical assault but also sexual, verbal, emotional, and financial abuse.
The woman presented in court intimate photos of the man that she had discovered on his phone gallery. The woman can be assumed to have experienced trauma, distress, and emotional abuse as a result of the contents, the court ruled. The court also noticed that the husband did not object to these pictures. It stated that because domestic abuse has proved substantially, it is the man's responsibility to maintain his wife. The amount for interim maintenance was decided Rs. 15000. The couple got married in December 2016.
Even after conviction, the Cheque Bounce Case Will Be Compounded: HP HC
The Himachal Pradesh High Court recently delivered a judgement that a cheque bounce case might continue even after a conviction.
In this instance, the accused issued a cheque with the intention of paying off his debt, but the cheque was returned unpaid when it was presented to the relevant bank.
The trial court found the petitioner-accused guilty of violating Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act and sentenced him accordingly to three months of simple imprisonment and restitution to the respondent/complainant in the amount of Rs. 4,80,000.
The accused chose to appeal, but it was also dismissed in the court of the Additional Sessions Judge. The petitioner accused further appealed the aforementioned decision to the Himachal Pradesh High Court, which likewise resulted in dismissal.
Demanding Money for Construction of House is Dowry: SC
The Supreme Court made the decision to enlarge the meaning of "dowry" in its decision in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Jogendra & Anr. According to the Supreme Court, any demand made on a woman, whether for money or property, should be regarded as a "dowry." According to the Dowry Prohibition Act of 1961, "dowry" refers to "any property or valued security" given as part of a marriage proposal. In India and almost every other country in the globe, women have long been oppressed. Despite all the women's empowerment campaigns, the situation is still severe. Many rights are still denied to women, and they also have limited access to economic and educational opportunities as well as ongoing prejudice and discrimination. The Supreme Court's historic decisions on a number of important matters are hoped to improve the position of women in India.
Wife Can File For Maintenance Under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code Even After Receiving Alimony:
Punjab & Harynana High Court the case concerned a 1983 wedding between the parties. They began living apart in 1993 following a marital argument between the two. The husband paid Rs. 3 lac as full and final alimony settlement for his wife's and their two children's past, present, and future claims of maintenance pursuant to a written compromise established in 1993. However, the wife filed a Section 125 petition for maintenance in 2007, and the Additional Sessions Judge in Pathankot ultimately ruled in her favour in 2016. As a result of this decision, the wife was given maintenance at a rate of Rs. 15,000 per month. This infuriated the husband, who then filed the current petition under Section 482 of the Criminal Procedure Code to have the Additional Sessions Judge's Pathankot judgement set aside. The Punjab and Haryana High Court has noted that even though a wife has already received a lump sum payment from her husband as alimony, she may still submit a claim for maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC.
Is the failure to produce the power of attorney fatal to the title suit?
Supreme Court's Verdict Was Split On Friday, the Supreme Court rendered a split decision in a case involving the argument that if a sale deed is signed based on a power of attorney, the plaintiff's case will be lost if the power of attorney is not produced in court. A bench made up of Justices M.R. Shah and B.V. Nagarathna rendered the decision. Justice Shah noted that the plaintiff had not submitted the Power of Attorney deed, but Justice Nagarathna felt that this did not make the plaintiff's case impossible to succeed. She pointed out that producing the original power of attorney is not necessary to prove that a sale deed was properly executed. According to Justice Nagarathna, the investigation allowed under the Registration Act of 1908 cannot go as far as asking whether the person who signed the document in his role as the principal's power of attorney actually had a legal power of attorney or not.
The Supreme Court orders insurers to pay replacement costs rather than depreciated values for goods damaged by fire
The National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission later reduced the order from INR 29,17,500 to INR 12,60,000, but the Supreme Court has upheld it. It was made by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission of Punjab. Additionally, the interest rate was reduced from 9% to 7%. A Bench made up of Justices M.R. Shah and C.T. Ravikumar determined after reading the insurance policy that the insured was entitled to the reinstatement value rather than the depreciated value. It was determined that the insured was entitled to INR 29,17,500, which represented the reinstatement value, plus interest at a rate of 7% from the date of the State Commission's order in 2014 until the actual payment
Can't get a divorce because of infertility; it's harsh, says the Calcutta High Court The Calcutta High Court has declared that infertility is not a valid reason for divorce and that abandoning a woman who is dealing with infertility-related mental and physical health concerns is "mental cruelty." A man was having a case heard by the HC regarding his appeal for the dismissal of criminal charges brought against him after he filed for divorce, citing "persistent mental torment and agony" brought on by his wife, who was suffering from mental health issues as a result of primary infertility and premature menopause.
Dismissing the argument that the man had married according to Muslim Personal Law, the Punjab & Haryana High Court refused anticipatory bail for allegedly abducting his underage wife. The court cited the definition of a child as anyone under 18 years old, as outlined in Section 2(d) of the 2012 Act. Furthermore, it emphasized that Section 42-A of the same Act gives precedence to its provisions over any conflicting laws. The case involved a Muslim man accused under IPC Sections 363 and 366-A for purportedly kidnapping a 15-year-old girl he married in 2023. Despite the girl expressing her desire not to return to her parents, she was sent to a Children's Home due to her minor status, as noted during the hearing.
Recently, the Supreme Court reiterated rules for appellate courts when reversing acquittals by trial courts. The rules are: (a) if the acquittal judgment is clearly wrong, (b) if it ignores important evidence, (c) if only one conclusion—guilt—is possible. In a case, the deceased son went to work with others on their land. Accused later attacked and killed him. The trial court acquitted all accused due to lack of proof beyond doubt. State appealed to the High Court, which convicted three accused. The convicted appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court said the High Court didn't follow the rules for reversing acquittals. Instead, it acted like a trial court, making its own decisions based on evidence. This goes against legal principles. Therefore, the Supreme Court found the High Court's judgment flawed.(Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar and others v. State of Karnataka)
The Punjab & Haryana High Court recently said that if partners have been living together like husband and wife for a long time, they can get maintenance even if they didn't do all the essential marriage ceremonies. This came up because someone challenged a maintenance order, saying that the ceremonies weren't done. But the court said that the main goal of Section 125 Cr.P.C. is to help women, children, and dependent parents quickly and make sure they get social justice. They also said that you don't have to prove the marriage for sure to get maintenance because it goes against the purpose of the law. The court wants to prevent dependents from being homeless or poor.
Today, the Supreme Court will continue hearing the contempt case involving Patanjali Ayurved, Acharya Balkrishna, and Baba Ramdev. The court will review the public apology they issued for misleading medical advertisements. Justices Hima Kohli and Ahsanuddin Amanullah will preside over the matter. Additionally, the Uttarakhand State Licensing Authority revealed in an affidavit filed on Monday that the manufacturing licenses of 14 products from Patanjali Ayurved Ltd and its sister concern Divya Pharmacy were suspended on April 15.
During arguments in Delhi Chief Minister Arvind Kejriwal's case challenging his arrest by the Enforcement Directorate over the Delhi Liquor Policy, Senior Advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi claimed to the Supreme Court that Kejriwal's arrest occurred due to the implementation of the Model Code of Conduct for Lok Sabha elections, despite lack of sufficient grounds or new evidence. After Singhvi's hour-long presentation, Justices Sanjiv Khanna and Dipankar Datta postponed the hearing to the following day. The Additional Solicitor General SV Raju, representing the ED, requested a Wednesday hearing, but the bench insisted on resuming the case the next day and accommodating the ASG if necessary.
On April 26, the Supreme Court retracted its earlier approval for terminating the pregnancy of a minor rape survivor, citing health concerns raised by the girl's parents. The bench, comprising CJI DY Chandrachud and Justices JB Pardiwala and Manoj Misra, emphasized the paramount importance of the child's welfare following a private discussion with the parents. Additional Solicitor General of India, Aishwarya Bhati, provided legal assistance during the proceedings. The parents, participating via video conferencing, expressed their intention to care for their daughter and proceed with the pregnancy.
Supreme Court Scrutinizes Bail Condition Regarding Google PIN Sharing for Location Tracking On April 29, the Supreme Court deliberated on the appropriateness of a bail condition that mandated an accused individual to divulge their Google PIN for the purpose of granting access to their live location to the investigating officer. Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan presided over the case, which raised concerns regarding the potential infringement of an individual's right to privacy. The matter stemmed from an appeal challenging conditions imposed by the Delhi High Court in 2022, where interim bail was granted to Frank Vitus, a Nigerian national implicated in a drug-related case. One of the conditions set by the High Court required Vitus and a co-accused to share their location via Google Maps, thereby enabling the investigating officer to track their movements.
The Supreme Court noted on Wednesday that individuals accused of a crime can be excused from appearing in court even before being granted bail. The court emphasized that the power to grant such exemptions shouldn't be limited to situations after bail has been granted, as stated in the Code of Criminal Procedure.