Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
This ruling is significant in the light of the judgment dated 01-05-2023, wherein the Constitution Bench had held that the Supreme Court has the power to dissolve a marriage on the ground of irretrievable breakdown under Article 142(1) of the Constitution of India.
The right of privacy claimed by the husband vis-à-vis the prayer of the wife to seek assistance of the Court for production of records to substantiate her charge of adultery levelled against the husband in her petition seeking divorce was the question before the Delhi High Court.
Supreme Court observed that in cases where the marital relationship has broken down irretrievably, where there is a long separation and absence of cohabitation, then continuation of such a ‘marriage' would only mean giving sanction to cruelty which each is inflicting on the other.
Given the expansive amplitude of power under Article 142(1) of the Constitution, the exercise of power must be legitimate, and clamours for caution, mindful of the danger that arises from adopting an individualistic approach as to the exercise of the Constitutional power, observed the Supreme Court
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.
The Supreme Court also held that the mandatory waiting period of 6 months for divorce by mutual consent can be dispensed subject to requirements and conditions laid down in previous Supreme Court judgments.
Petitioner contended that they were entitled to the Fundamental Right to marry which was entrenched in the Constitution which includes the choice of a marital partner. Neither the State nor Society could intrude into the domain of individual right to pursue a way of life which were central to their identity and autonomy.
Keeping regard with the trend of rising prices and the basic needs getting costlier, the Punjab and Haryana High Court said that maintenance awarded by the Trial Court could not be said to be on a higher side.
Allahabad High Court: The Division Bench of Sunita Agarwal and Om Prakash Shukla, JJ. dismissed and appeal on the admission stage itself
Madras High Court: G R Swaminathan J. dismissed the petition of an inter-faith couple seeking registration of their self-respect marriage on the
Allahabad High Court Disability In a case where an employee of Central Bank of India petitioned to be exempted from routine transfers
Bombay High Court: Bharati Dangre, J. rejected a writ petition which was filed by the husband, being aggrieved of the order passed
There is no straight-jacket formula when considering the term “cruelty” and it depends upon the established pleadings and evidence on record and the inference has to be drawn from the attending facts and circumstances taken cumulatively
Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a matter with regard to mental cruelty, the Division Bench of Ritu Bahri and Ashok Kumar
Madhya Pradesh High Court: The Division Bench of Vivek Rusia and Amar Nath (Kesharwani), JJ. dismissed the first appeal filed by the
Interesting Stories of the Week [Media Trial] Can media be given right to speculate on outcome of one going investigations or Court
Madhya Pradesh High Court: The Division Bench of Sheel Nagu and Anand Pathak, JJ., allowed an appeal which was preferred under Section
“Neither the State nor the law can dictate a choice of partners or limit the free ability of every person to decide
Delhi High Court: Chandra Dhari Singh, J., addressed a matter wherein the right of residence was claimed by the wife. In the
Delhi High Court: Expressing that the Family Court’s decision was based on optimism and hope rather than the actual factual matrix of