Supreme Court of India Judgements

46660 Judgements hosted as on 19/11/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Matrimonial

Matrimonial

Dissolution of marriage – no useful purpose shall be served to further enter into the merits of the findings recorded by the courts below on “cruelty” and “desertion” by the wife – Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in exercise of powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, the decree passed by the learned Family Court, confirmed by the High Court, dissolving the marriage between the wife and the respondent-husband is not required to be interfered with on account of irretrievable breakdown of marriage.

Dec 5, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NEHA TYAGI — Appellant Vs. LIEUTENANT COLONEL DEEPAK TYAGI — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and A.S. Bopanna, JJ. ) Civil Appeal No.…

Matrimonial

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 25 – Matrimonial Case – Transfer of – Family Court at Gurugram (Haryana) to any other court of competent jurisdiction at Gwalior(M.P.) – Both the parties will cooperate with the competent court of jurisdiction at Gwalior for expeditious disposal of the petition – Petition allowed.

Oct 30, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA SINGLE BENCH BABITA SRIVASTAVA — Appellant Vs. VINOD SRIVASTAVA — Respondent ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna, J. ) Transfer Petition(s)(Civil) No. 1867 of 2019 Decided on…

Matrimonial

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Section 25 – Matrimonial Case – Transfer of – Family Court at Thane, Maharashtra, to a Court of competent jurisdiction at Mangalore, Dakshin Kannada District, Karnataka – No objection by Husband – It is needless to observe that both the parties will cooperate with the competent court of jurisdiction at Mangalore for expeditious disposal of the petition.

Oct 30, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA SINGLE BENCH RASHMI ROHAN SHETTY — Appellant Vs. ROHAN RAGHUNATH SHETTY — Respondent ( Before : B.V. Nagarathna, J. ) Transfer Petition(s)(Civil) No. 3044 of 2019…

Matrimonial

IMP: On a fair reading of Section 23A of the Hindu Marriage Act, the respondent in any proceedings for divorce or judicial separation or restitution of conjugal rights, may not only oppose the relief sought on the ground of adultery, cruelty or desertion, but also make a counterclaim for any relief under Hindu Marriage Act, i.e, on the ground of petitioner’s adultery, cruelty or desertion and if the petitioner’s adultery, cruelty or desertion is proved, the court may give to the respondent any relief under Hindu Marriage Act

Oct 10, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH NITABEN DINESH PATEL — Appellant Vs. DINESH DAHYABHAI PATEL — Respondent ( Before : M.R. Shah and A.S. Bopanna, JJ. ) Civil Appeal Nos.…

Matrimonial

Divorce – Husband and wife have been living separately for more than 16 years – Marriage between the parties is emotionally dead and there is no point in persuading them to live together any more – Therefore, this is a fit case for exercise of jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India – Marriage between the parties is dissolved.

Sep 19, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SUBHRANSU SARKAR — Appellant Vs. INDRANI SARKAR (NEE DAS) — Respondent ( Before : L. Nageswara Rao and B.R. Gavai, JJ. ) Civil Appeal…

Matrimonial

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13(1)(i-a) – Divorce on ground of cruelty – Repeated filing of cases against husband – Repeated filing of cases itself has been held in judicial pronouncements to amount to mental cruelty – Decree of divorce passed – Appeal allowed.

Sep 19, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DIVISION BENCH SIVASANKARAN — Appellant Vs. SANTHIMEENAL — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. ) Civil Appeal Nos. 4984-4985 of 2021…

Matrimonial

Family Courts Act, 1984 – Sections 7, 10, 14, 15 and 15 – Jurisdiction of Family Court – Family Court does not have plenary powers to do away with the mandatory procedural requirements in particular, which guarantee fairness and transparency in the process to be followed and for adjudication of claims of both sides.

Mar 21, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH AMAN LOHIA — Appellant Vs. KIRAN LOHIA — Respondent ( Before : A.M. Khanwilkar, B.R. Gavai and Krishna Murari, JJ. ) Transferred Case (Civil)…

Matrimonial

Matrimonial Law – Restitution of conjugal rights – Wronged party cannot be expected to continue with the matrimonial relationship. Husband is accordingly held entitled to dissolution of his marriage and consequently the wife’s application for restitution of conjugal rights stands dismissed

Feb 27, 2021 sclaw

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA FULL BENCH JOYDEEP MAJUMDAR — Appellant Vs. BHARTI JAISWAL MAJUMDAR — Respondent ( Before : Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Dinesh Maheshwari and Hrishikesh Roy, JJ. ) Civil…

You missed

Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 376 and 313 — Rape — False promise of marriage — Physical relationship with the complainant under the false promise of marriage, leading to her pregnancy and subsequent abortions — Whether the FIR should be quashed based on the allegations and the delay in filing the complaint — The petitioner argued that the relationship was consensual and the delay in filing the FIR undermines the credibility of the allegations — The respondent claimed that the petitioner deceived her with a false promise of marriage, leading to non-consensual physical relations — The Supreme Court quashed the FIR, noting the long-term consensual relationship and the lack of prima facie evidence for rape under Section 376 IPC —The Court emphasized the delay in filing the FIR and the nature of the relationship, which appeared consensual —The Court referred to previous judgments, highlighting the importance of prima facie evidence and the misuse of legal provisions —The FIR and all proceedings based on it were quashed, preventing abuse of the legal process.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Acquittal

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) — Sections 420, 468, 471 and 120-B —Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 — Section 13(2) and 13(1)(d) — Financial misconduct and conspiracy — Whether the High Court was correct in discharging the respondent from the charges of conspiracy and financial misconduct — The CBI argued that the High Court conducted a mini-trial at the charge-framing stage and that there was sufficient suspicion to frame charges against the respondent — The respondent’s counsel argued that the material in the charge sheet did not make out a case against the respondent and that the High Court rightly discharged him —The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision to discharge the respondent, stating that mere suspicion was not enough to frame charges – The Court found that the respondent’s role was limited to signing the memorandum prepared by senior officers and participating in the Management Committee meeting, which approved the proposal — The Court emphasized that the proposal had passed through various committees and that the respondent’s actions did not amount to criminal misconduct — The appeal was dismissed, and the respondent was discharged from the charges — The trial against other accused persons will continue.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Municipal Laws

Patna Municipal Corporation Act, 1951 — Sections 146, 423 and 488(1) — The Patna Municipal Corporation imposed a royalty on advertisements, which was later increased — The respondents challenged this imposition, arguing it was a tax without legislative backing — Whether the royalty imposed by the Corporation was a tax and if it was legally enforceable without legislative sanction — The Corporation argued that the royalty was agreed upon by the parties and was not a tax — They contended that the enhancement of the rate was within their rights — The respondents argued that the imposition was a tax, which required legislative sanction, and the Corporation had no authority to levy it — The Division Bench quashed the enhancement, ruling that the Corporation had no power to impose the tax without legislative backing — The Court found that the royalty was not a tax but a fee agreed upon by the parties — It held that the Corporation’s actions were within the scope of the agreement — The Court distinguished between royalty and tax, emphasizing that royalty is based on an agreement, not statutory provision — The Court upheld the imposition of royalty as per the agreement but noted that the enhancement in rates was not challenged effectively — The judgment of the Division Bench was set aside.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw
Constitution

Citizenship Act, 1955 — Section 6A — Special provisions as to citizenship of persons covered by the Assam Accord — The case involves the constitutional validity of Section 6A of the Citizenship Act 1955, which grants citizenship to certain migrants from Bangladesh to Assam —The main issues include whether Parliament had the legislative competence to enact Section 6A, and if Section 6A violates Articles 6, 7, 14, 29, and 355 of the Constitution — Petitioners argue that Section 6A is unconstitutional as it conflicts with Articles 6 and 7, adopts unreasonable cut-off dates, and violates Articles 14, 29, and 355 — Respondents contend that Section 6A is within Parliament’s legislative competence under Article 11 and does not violate the Constitution — The judgment addresses the legislative competence of Parliament, the reasonableness of cut-off dates, and the impact on Assamese cultural identity — The court examines the historical context of citizenship provisions, the legislative intent behind Section 6A, and the scope of judicial review under Article 14 — The court analyzes the constitutional provisions on citizenship, the legislative objective of Section 6A, and the balance between legislative intent and constitutional mandates —The court concludes that Section 6A of the Citizenship Act is constitutional and does not violate the cited Articles of the Constitution.

Oct 21, 2024 sclaw