Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“The District Magistrate concerned is to ensure that sufficient police force is deployed at barrier to prevent forced unauthorized entry into Yatra Route by unregistered handlers, along with their unregistered Equines and any other routes, which are not barricaded, should be blocked to prevent unauthorized entry.”
In the present case, though the wife had made allegation of extra-marital affair against her husband in her written statement, nonetheless, when the husband entered-into the witness box and tendered his affidavit in evidence, he did not whisper even a word in this regard.
In this case, the husband had petitioned for dissolution of his marriage on grounds of cruelty, but the Family Court dismissed his petition. However, the High Court upon close scrutiny of evidence on record, set aside the Family Court’s decision.
Calcutta High Court held the trial court’s findings were not aligned with the legal requirements for cruelty under Section 498A IPC.
“During the said period of trial, there is no occasion for the applicant to keep him languishing behind the bars, as it would serve no purpose especially in view of the aforesaid and as it is a trite law that no person is presumed guilty until proven otherwise.”
In the peculiar facts of the present case, taking recourse to law, cannot be, by any stretch of imagination, labeled as an instance of cruelty.
“Developing any disease during the continuation of marriage is not within the control of any spouse. In such a situation, the other spouse has a marital duty to co-operate and bear with it and help the other spouse.”
The Court pointed out that ‘woman’ as per S. 498-A, IPC means and includes a legally wedded wife.
When the husband had left the matrimonial home and he is residing away and there is an allegation of second marriage on the husband, the wife cannot be blamed for not taking steps to restore the conjugal rights
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.
The Court pointed out that merely because the petitioner provided monetary help to the woman, it cannot be said that they are married. Since the woman was already married, there is no case of breach of promise to marry either.
Noting the husband’s interest in watching videos by Sisters of Brahmakumari, which eventually led to non-consummation of his marriage, the Court was of the view that this situation does not fall under the scheme of S. 498-A, IPC.
Rajasthan High Court observed that the DNA Paternity Test requires to be conducted only in exceptional cases, and therefore, the child cannot be used as a weapon to get divorce on ground of adultery, on the strength of outcome of a DNA Paternity Test.
The Court was hearing a case where a wife had lodged a complaint alleging cruelty by her husband and in-laws, after a divorce petition had already been filed by the husband.
A wife having illicit intimacy with another person will adversely affect the husband and family, both personally and in society. The husband cannot sit quite if the wife is having illicit intimacy with another person.
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.
Section 438 was inserted in CrPC as it was seen that the influential persons try to implicate their rivals in false cases for the purpose of disgracing them by detaining them in jail for some time. It is true, such powers are to be exercised in exceptional cases. The prosecution cannot be permitted to be converted into an arena to settle scores.
Society residents obligated to provide drinking water to stray dogs due to onset of summer heat.
Dismissing the revision petition filed for quashing of FIR and criminal proceeding against the petitioner/husband, the Court held that prima facie case of a cognizable offence of cruelty can be make out against the petitioner/husband therefore inherit power of High Court under S. 482 CrPC cannot be exercised.