 |
Supreme Court JudgmentsLatest with complete text judgments available for free |
High Court Lawyers in India |
|
|
Supreme Court JudgmentsLatest with complete text judgments available for free |
High Court Lawyers in India |
Call Ph no 9891244487 or Email at [email protected]
Cause List of High Courts in India |
|
|
Euthanasia
Vakalatnama - Cpc Order 111 Rule 4
Professional Misconduct of a lawyer
Transfer of Petition
Industrial Dispute act:Judgments on Abortion / Termination of pregnancy
|
SPS Bala subramanyam v Sruttayan: If a man and woman are living under the same roof and cohabiting for a number of years, there will be presumption under Section 114 of the Evidence Act that they live as husband and wife and the children born to them will not be illegitimate
Tulsa and ors. v Durghatiya and ors:
Held that when a man and a woman have cohabited for a long period of
time they will be considered to be married unless there is an evidence
to the contrary .This judgement illustrates the courts attempt to treat
a live in similarly to marriage
Madan Mohan Singh & Ors v Rajni Kant: “Live-in relationship’ is a walk-in and walk-out relationship. There are no strings attached to this relationship, neither this relationship creates any legal bond between the parties. It is a contract of living together which is renewed every day by the parties and can be terminated by either of the parties without consent of the other party and one party can walk out at will at any time.
Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v State of Gujarat:
Made an exception where the live in partner who had assumed the role of
second wife was not granted any maintenance whereas the child was
granted maintenance.
Captain Ramesh Chander Kaushal v Mrs.Veen Kaushal: The right to maintenance is condition to the fatherhood of the child being established.
Dimple Gupta v Rajiv Gupta: maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC for illegitimate child born out of an illicit relationship
Vidyadhari v Sukhrana Bai : Supreme Court passed a landmark judgement wherein the Court granted inheritance to the children born from the live in relationship in question and ascribed them the status of “legal heirs”.
Revanasiddappa v Mallikarjun: The question raised in this cases was whether the children of void/voidable marriages have a right to only the self-acquired property of their parents? Since, there is no attempt to marry, theoretically it is often argued that live in relationships should not be granted any form of legitimacy in the eyes of law and the children born out of such sexual unions cannot be provided with any inheritance rights. However, in such a situation the Courts have exercised the authority vested in them and interpreted the statutes in a broader manner to ensure that the children do not suffer as a result of the wrongs of their parents and consequently face problems in their economic as well as social life. Apart from the presumption of marriage in case of existence of such relations for a reasonable period of time, the Court have adopted a liberal approach towards the inheritance rights of children specifically.
Parayan kandiyal Eravath Kanapravan Kalliani Amma vs K. Devi: the HMA1955, a beneficial legislation, has to be interpreted in a manner which advances the object of the legislation.
Radhika v. State of M.P: Live-in-relationship for a long period will be treated as married
Rape Laws
Mrs. Rupan Deol Bajaj vs Kanwar Pal Singh Gill: a senior IAS officer, Rupan Bajaj was slapped on the posterior by the then Chief of Police, Punjab- Mr. K P S.Gill at a dinner party in July 1988. Rupan Bajaj filed a suit against him, despite the public opinion that she was blowing it out of proportion, along with the attempts by all the senior officials of the state to suppress the matter.
N Radhabai Vs. D. Ramchandran
when Radhabai, Secretary to D Ramchandran, the then social minister for
state protested against his abuse of girls in the welfare institutions, he
attempted to molest her, which was followed by her dismissal. The Supreme Court
in 1995 passed the judgment in her favor, with back pay and perks from the date
of dismissal
Sakshi v. Union of India
the interpretation [by which such other forms of abuse as offences fall
under Section 354 IPC or Section 377 IPC] is . contrary to the contemporary
understanding of sexual abuse and violence all over the world.
Domestic Violence:
Kaveri vs. Neel Sagar and Anr: The relevant facts show that the petitioner had filed an application under Section 23 of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act seeking restraint order against the respondents and seeking direction to provide her residential accommodation and to pay sum of Rs. 15000/- pm as interim maintenance.
Fateh Chand vs State of Haryana: The prosecutrix Geeta was detained and forced to have sexual intercourse with the appellant and was later involved in flesh trade.
Pannalal Pitti v. State of A.P - validity of provisions of A.P. Charitable Hindu Religious and Endowments Act, 1987
Githa Hariharan v. Reserve Bank of India - considering the Constitutional validity of S. 6 of the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act
Madhu Kishwar V. State of Bihar - Certain provisions of Chotanagpur Tenancy Act, 1908 were challenged as being discriminatory towards women
Anil Kumar Mhasi v. Union of India - additional grounds given to a woman for claiming divorce under the Indian Divorce Act were challenged as being discriminatory towards men.
Reynold Rajamani v. Union of India - The excerpts of this judgment on which reliance was placed upon by the Supreme Court in the AWAG case pertain to prayers by the parties to increase the grounds available for divorce under the Indian Divorce Act.
Royappa v. State of Tamil Nadu - any law that is arbitrary is considered violative of Article 14 as well
Chameli Singh v. State of U.P - it was held that the right to life would include the right to shelter, distinguishing the matter at hand from Gauri Shankar v. Union of India
Gauri Shankar v. Union of India - where the question had related to eviction of a tenant under a statute. Ss. 6 and 17 of the Domestic Violence Act reinforce this right
Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation v. Nawab Khan Gulab Khan - the Supreme Court emphasised the fact that the right to life included in its ambit the right to live with human dignity, basing its opinion on a host of cases that had been decided in favour of this proposition
Francis Coralie Mullin v. Union Territory Delhi, Administrator - the
Supreme Court stated, any act which damages or injures or interferes with the
use of any limb or faculty of a person, either permanently or even temporarily,
would be within the inhibition of Article 21.
Appellate Jurisdiction of Supreme Court
Kailas & Ors. v/s State of Maharashtra and Taluka P.S
The following are some examples in which NGO take an action in court
for protecting human right:
Vishaka vs State of Rajasthan: for the first time sexual harassment had been explicitly- legally defined as an unwelcome sexual gesture or behaviour whether directly or indirectly as:
Sexually coloured remarks
Physical contact and advances
Showing pornography
A demand or request for sexual favours
Any other unwelcome physical, verbal/non-verbal conduct being sexual in nature.
Apparel Export Promotion Council Vs. AK.Chopra: The Supreme Court in this case declared that sexual harassment is gender discrimination against women and also said that any act or attempt of molestation by a superior will constitute sexual harassment.
U.S. Verma, Principal and Delhi Public School Society vs. National Commission for Women and Ors
People’s Union for Democratic Rights V/s Police commissioner Delhi, head quarters
File Special Leave Petition!Call us at: 9650499965 / Email at: [email protected] |
File Caveat in Supreme CourtRight AwayCall us at Ph no: 9650499965 |
|
|
Shaikh Tufail Ahmad vs Mt. Umme Khatoon And Ors: it was stated that the concept of marz ul maut was not properly interpreted by the Trial court. The doctrine of marz ul maut was not applied by the Hon’ble appellate court as the lady so called suffering from marz ul maut was nowhere under the apprehension of death.
Shaik Nurbi vs Pathan Mastanbi And Ors:
Three conditions have to be satisfied to establish Marz-ul-Maut, which
are:
proximate danger of death, so that there is a preponderance of apprehension of death;
some degree of subjective apprehension of death in the mind of the sick person and
some external indicia, chief among which would be inability to attend to ordinary avocations.
Jafar Ali Khan And Ors. vs Nasimannessa Bibi
Safia Begum vs Abdul Rajak: it was stated that the burden of proving the existence of the donor's death-illness at the time of the gift lies on the party asserting it.
|
|
About Us |
Divorce |
Terms of use |
Family Laws |
Lawyers |
Legal Article |
Sitemap |
Contact Us
legal Service India.com is Copyrighted under the Registrar of Copyright Act ( Govt
of India) © 2000-2022
ISBN No: 978-81-928510-0-6