Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
This report covers the Supreme Court’s Never Reported Judgment dating back to the year 1953 on alienation of property under Hindu Law.
Allahabad High Court clarified that it is not against live-in relationships, but against illegal relations
by Bijal Ajinkya† and Sachin Bhandawat††
Cite as: 2024 SCC OnLine Blog Exp 5
This report covers the Supreme Court’s Never Reported Judgment dating back to the year 1952 on rescinding partition on ground of fraud.
This report covers the Supreme Court’s Never Reported Judgment dating back to the year 1952 on partition of Hadapsar lands under Hindu law.
This report covers the Supreme Court's Never Reported Judgment dating back to the year 1951 on requirements of adoption under Hindu Law.
Awareness has to be created in young minds not just from the point of view of emotional and societal pressures that Live -in relationships may create, but also from the perspective that it could give rise to various legal hassles.
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.
The bench of KM Joseph and BV Nagarathna, JJ has held that the definition of ‘family' under the Central Civil Services (Pension) Rules, 1972 is a restrictive and specific one and cannot be expanded to take within its sweep, all heirs, as provided under Hindu law, or other personal laws.
Himachal Pradesh High Court: In a petition related to family pension, Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J has held that the second
Madhya Pradesh High Court: The Division Bench of Vivek Rusia and Amar Nath (Kesharwani), JJ. dismissed the first appeal filed by the
Supreme Court: In a case where a portion of a joint Hindu Family was alienated ‘out of love and affection’ by way
Supreme Court: The bench of SA Nazeer and Krishna Murari*, JJ has held that if a female Hindu dies intestate without leaving
by Aparna N.*and Nayana Tara BG**
Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of Ashok Bhushan. R. Subhash Reddy and MR shah, JJ has held that an unmarried Hindu daughter
Supreme Court: Explaining the requirement under Section 69 of the Evidence Act pertinent to Section 68 of the Evidence Act that the
Supreme Court: The bench of UU Lalit and Indu Malhotra, JJ has upheld the rights of the Travancore royal family in the
Supreme Court: The 3-judge bench of Dipak Misra, CJ and AM Khanwilkar and Dr. DY Chandrachud, JJ referred the question as to
Supreme Court: Dealing with the case where the husband had sought divorce from his wife on the ground that she was forcing