Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“Once there is no denial of the fact that the husband is an able-bodied young man capable of earning, he cannot simply deny his legal obligation of maintaining of his wife equal to the status and strata.”
“The parties are dark complexioned people, but their child was fair complexioned. That is the reason why the dispute arose, and the husband started to physically harass the wife and drove her out of the matrimonial house along with the child.”
The expression “soon before her death” in Section 304-B of Penal Code, 1860 must be read as an expression of continuity of time and not an expression of mere length of time. The legislature in its wisdom had used the phrase as “soon before” and not “immediately before”.
The wife claimed that she has a M.Sc. degree in Clothing and Textile but was forced to leave her job as her husband was against her working.
“Merely because the woman may have made that choice cannot be concluded to mean that she had separated from her matrimonial home without reasonable cause or that she would have sufficient means to survive on her own.”
The Family Judge has erred in analyzing the life of the parties by taking a myopic view and by considering each incident as an independent window, when in fact it is the journey of the parties through their matrimonial life, which is determinative of their compatibility, progressiveness, and growth.
Unfortunate are the matrimonial disputes where the fountain head of friction inter se the spouses is mere lack of adjustment, understanding and the will to stay together. These factors are the wheels of the chariot of a workable marriage and if either spouse becomes averse to move together and chooses to abandon the relationship, then extensive reconciliatory efforts by one spouse, would also not yield any results.
The Court said that without a positive act on the part of the accused to instigate or aid in committing suicide, conviction cannot be sustained.
The Delhi High Court held that the law did not permit even the husband to take household articles including the jewellery without the consent and knowledge of his wife.
Madras High Court: In a case of marital discord and petitioner-wife, a practicing advocate was seeking removal of respondent-husband from
Delhi High Court: Prateek Jalan, J., addressed the issue of whether visits of sundry family members to the matrimonial home, without permanency
Delhi High Court: Noting the separation of 12 years between the husband and wife, the Division Bench of Vipin Sanghi and Jasmeet
Delhi High Court: Subramonium Prasad, J., refused to grant relief to the petitioner against orders of the lower court restraining him from
Allahabad High Court: Dinesh Kumar Singh-I, J., while discussing abetment of suicide, stated that: “…if some act either of omission or commission
Jharkhand High Court: A Division Bench of H.C. Mishra and Rajesh Kumar JJ., rejected the prayer and dismissed the appeal being devoid
Gauhati High Court: Hitesh Kumar Sarma, J., while disposing of a criminal revision petition filed against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge,
Rajasthan High Court: A Division Bench of Sandeep Mehta and Abhay Chaturvedi, JJ., allowed a Habeas Corpus Petition and allowed the petitioner
Chhattisgarh High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Goutam Bhaduri, J. dismissed an appeal filed against the order of the lower