News

The declarative stance articulated by the Supreme Court elucidates that, in accordance with the stipulations set forth in Sections 15 and 16 of the Hindu Succession Act (HSA), the widow of a deceased son does not inherently accrue an immediate entitlement to assert a proprietary interest in the joint family property earmarked for the mother-in-law. […]

The Supreme Court made it clear that Section 65-B certificates are allowed at any time during a trial under the Indian Evidence Act. This was emphasized during the Bangalore bomb blasts case, where the Court talked about the importance of fairness in criminal trials. They stressed that being impartial is crucial for justice. The Court

The Delhi High Court has unambiguously affirmed that the exclusive jurisdiction to grant divorces predicated on the grounds of irretrievable breakdown of a marriage is vested in the Supreme Court, in accordance with the provisions of Article 142 of the Indian Constitution. In a pertinent legal matter wherein the spouse, acting as the appellant, contested

The Court stressed that refusal to grant divorce would force parties to suffer further and would amount to “law-induced mental cruelty.” In a recent legal judgment, a Delhi court has advocated the compulsory incorporation of prenuptial agreements as a prerequisite for matrimonial unions. The primary objective of this recommendation is to ameliorate the emotional distress

Section 112 of the Evidence Act underscores the principle that children born within the confines of a legally recognized marriage are deemed legitimate per se and it ensures that no unwarranted assumptions of impropriety or moral transgressions are made and instead places the burden of proof on those who contest the child’s legitimacy. In the

In a noteworthy legal development, a Delhi Court has decreed a mutual divorce under the provisions of Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act, notwithstanding the sustained and vigorous opposition exhibited by the wife towards her husband\’s divorce petition, which extended over a period of seven years. This distinctive case, characterized by the conspicuous absence

\”The right of the petitioners to marry a person of their own choice is indelible and protected under the Constitution, which cannot be diluted in any manner whatsoever,\” the court said. In a recent legal decision, the Delhi High Court emphasized that your constitutional right to marry the person you choose remains strong and unchanging,

A recent decision from the Delhi High Court states that, according to the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, you can\’t have a second marriage if your ex-spouse or you are still alive, even if you both agree. This ruling was made by a group of judges, including Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna.

“The very fact that the wife had not only claimed but also accepted pendente lite maintenance during the appeal from the first husband fortifies that the marriage was not finally dissolved.” Delhi High Court\’s Determination on Marriage Legitimacy: In the present litigation, an appeal was initiated under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984,

The Delhi High Court has delineated the position that in circumstances where both spouses possess equivalent qualifications and earn comparable incomes, the wife is not eligible for interim maintenance, as prescribed under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act. A divisional bench, comprised of Justice Suresh Kumar Kait and Justice Neena Bansal Krishna, has reaffirmed