harassment

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The Delhi High Court observed that merely because there was no express provision in the Code of Civil Procedure, it does not mean that in-camera proceedings cannot be allowed. Therefore, the Court held that in appropriate cases, the Court may under Section 151 of the Code pass any order for carrying out the proceedings in camera if warranted by the facts and circumstances of the case.

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

All that the respondent wished for was a better roof over the head of his family. It was for this objective that the collaboration agreement was devised, but the appellant subjected the respondent to undue harassment on account of his illegal designs which led to the registration of the FIR, and the respondent had to run from pillar to post due to the direct acts of the appellant. Such circumstances do warrant awarding of damages on account of mental agony and harassment.

Case BriefsHigh Courts

When a law-abiding citizen is adopting legal procedure and has gone to the Police Station to lodge a report, but his report has not been taken, then, such a person/s deserves to be protected. When prima facie the offences are not attracting the provisions under the Atrocities Act, there was no question of the bar under Section 18 of the Atrocities Act

Case BriefsHigh Courts

The Telangana High Court upheld the conviction of a husband under Section 498A of Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) despite there being contradictions in the dying declarations as there were consistent statements about abuse and cruelty committed on the wife in all the dying declarations.

Madras High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Madras High Court: In a suicide case by a 17-year-old school boy, filed against the headmaster S.M. Subramaniam, J. has held that

Bombay High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

    Bombay High Court: In an application filed under Section 482 of Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) for quashing the FIR for

Case BriefsSupreme Court

Supreme Court: In an appeal directed against the judgment passed by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, confirming the Family Court’s order

Andhra Pradesh High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

    Andhra Pradesh High Court: Subba Reddy Satti J. granted anticipatory bail to the Chief Executing Officer (applicant-accused) as on perusal

Madhya Pradesh High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Madhya Pradesh High Court: The Division Bench of Rohit Arya and Milind Ramesh Phadke, JJ. took strong exception to the functioning of

Kerala High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Kerala High Court: The Division Bench comprising A. Muhamed Mustaque and Sophy Thomas, JJ., held that cruelty has to be assessed from

Tripura High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Tripura High Court: Arindam Lodh, J. while noting that there were no legitimate grounds to deny the employee of gratuity and other

Karnataka High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Karnataka High Court: H.P. Sandesh, J. allowed the petition and granted bail to the petitioner in connection with a crime registered in 

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: Asha Menon, J., while setting aside the conclusion of the Metropolitan Magistrate and upholding the intervention by Sessions Court

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Madhya Pradesh High Court: Rajeev Kumar Shrivastava, J. allowed a petition which was filed to quash FIR for offence under Sections 498-A,

Case BriefsDistrict Court

Court of 30th Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Bengaluru: I.P. Naik, 30th ACMM, addressed a case wherein a pillion on a bike harassed

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court: Sarang V. Kotwal, J., on noting that the husband and wife cannot live together and there were constant quarrels

Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Jammu and Kashmir High Court: In a case alleging dowry death, Rajnesh Oswal, J., clarified the scope and applicability of Jammu and

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court: Mukta Gupta, J., decided whether a settlement of parties wherein an accused and his family members who subjected his

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Madras High Court: V Bharathidasan, J., held that, Mere harassment without any mens rea which lead to the suicide would not amount

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Bombay High Court: Noting in case after case, complaints from senior citizens that their own sons and daughters are harassing them, Division