The Karnataka High Court ordered ₹5 lakhs compensation to a man wrongly arrested due to identity confusion. The court emphasized the importance of verifying identity before making an arrest to protect fundamental rights.
The Madras High Court has directed the police to file cheating charges against a man for failing to disclose his impotency before marriage. The court ruled that the accused deceived his wife and family, warranting legal action.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that in matrimonial cases, the husband’s convenience takes priority when he has custody of minor children. The court directed the husband to bear the wife’s travel expenses to attend court proceedings.
The Delhi High Court ruled that rejecting a maintenance application in divorce proceedings does not prevent a wife from seeking maintenance under Section 125 CrPC, as the provision is distinct in its scope and purpose.
The Kerala High Court ruled that being convicted under Section 498A IPC for cruelty does not automatically mean guilt for abetment of suicide under Section 306 IPC. The court emphasized the need for distinct evidence to establish each charge.
A rape accused has approached the Kerala High Court to protect his privacy and dignity during his ongoing trial. He has requested the removal of online articles and bail orders that reveal personal details, citing the constitutional right to privacy and the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
Union Minister Kiren Rijiju calls on states to establish family courts in districts with over 10 lakh population, highlighting the need for careful handling of sensitive cases and faster resolutions using mediation and technology.
The Calcutta High Court showed leniency towards a wife by transferring her divorce case to Siliguri. The decision took into account her financial struggles and fears of physical assault, prioritizing her convenience over the husband’s.
The Bombay High Court criticized the misuse of Section 498A, highlighting cases where distant relatives are falsely accused. It quashed a complaint against a relative living separately, emphasizing the need to prevent harassment through baseless allegations.
The Supreme Court ruled that a mother, as the natural guardian, can choose her child’s surname after remarriage. The court stressed the importance of identity and mental well-being for the child.
