The Karnataka High Court upheld charges of rape and cruelty against a husband, stating that marriage does not provide immunity for brutal acts. The court stressed that all individuals, including husbands, are accountable for their actions under the law.
The Gauhati High Court declared that a husband cannot avoid his legal obligation to pay maintenance by signing an agreement with his wife. Discover the court’s decision and its implications for maintenance rights under Section 125 CrPC.
The Delhi High Court ruled that a man’s financial support for his divorced sister should be considered when determining maintenance amounts. This decision highlights the importance of family obligations and the unique circumstances of each case.
The Punjab and Haryana High Court ruled that a wife must be proven to have been living in adultery at the relevant time to be denied maintenance. A single act of adultery does not disqualify her from receiving maintenance.
The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently modified a judgment that controversially noted a rape convict was “kind enough” to leave the survivor alive. The court has revised the language while maintaining the reduced sentence.
The Uttarakhand High Court ruled that individuals can be represented by a power of attorney in divorce proceedings under The Hindu Marriage Act, overturning a Family Court’s earlier decision.
The Madras High Court reversed a Family Court decision requiring a wife to pay interim maintenance to her husband, ruling that the husband was capable of earning a livelihood.
An Ahmedabad court ruled that a rape case cannot be used to force a man to fulfill a marriage promise, acquitting Bhavesh Patel of accusations made by a married woman. Discover the court’s rationale and case details.
The Karnataka High Court ruled that a wife cannot solely rely on her estranged husband for full maintenance and must make efforts to support herself. The court upheld the reduction of her maintenance and compensation amounts.
The Bombay High Court ruled that a second marriage during the existence of the first marriage constitutes rape, not just bigamy. The court dismissed the man’s petition to quash the FIR, emphasizing the seriousness of his actions.
