Supreme Court of India Judgements

46468 Judgements hosted as on 12/05/2024 - Search (FREE), Subscribe, Read & Download

Category: Matrimonial

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

I P C

Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Sections 376(2)(g) and 506(1) – Tamil Nadu Prevention of Women Harassment Act, 1998 – Section 4 – Gang Rape – The victim’s testimony, along with her mother and aunt’s statements, was consistent with the initial complaint and corroborated by medical evidence – The defense argued that the long gap between the victim’s examination-in-chief and cross-examination led to inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimonies – Whether the long gap between the victim’s examination-in-chief and cross-examination led to inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimonies – The inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimonies were not significant and did not affect the overall credibility of the evidence – The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction of the appellant for gang rape and related charges – The court rejected the defense’s argument that the long gap between the victim’s examination-in-chief and cross-examination led to inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimonies – The court found that the evidence presented was sufficient to convict the appellant for gang rape and related charges – The Supreme Court found that the evidence presented was sufficient to convict the appellant and rejected the defence’s arguments regarding inconsistencies in the witnesses’ testimonies.

May 12, 2024 sclaw
Limitation

Dismissal of Civil Suit – Condonation of delay – Standing to file an application – The court clarified that only parties to a suit or those who have accrued a right in the lis can file an application for condonation of delay in filing an application for restoration of the suit. A stranger to the proceedings cannot file such an application.

May 12, 2024 sclaw
Limitation

Limitation Act, 1963 – Haryana Public Moneys (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1979 – Section 3(1)(b) – State Financial Corporation Act, 1951 – Section 29 – The appeals arise from a High Court judgment regarding the recovery of time-barred debts under the Act, 1979, and the Act, 1951 – The main issue is whether a debt time-barred under the Limitation Act can be recovered using the aforementioned Acts – The appellants argued that time-barred debts cannot be recovered under the Recovery of Dues Act, citing the precedent set in V.R. Kalliyanikutty – The respondents argued that the Recovery of Dues Act and the State Financial Corporations Act allow for time-barred debt recovery, as they only bar the remedy, not the right – The court examined whether the Recovery of Dues Act creates a new right for creditors and allows for time-barred debt recovery – The court discussed the distinction between a debt and the right of action for its recovery, noting that the statute of limitation bars the latter but not the former – The court concluded that the Recovery of Dues Act and the State Financial Corporations Act provide an alternative mechanism for recovering debts, even if they are time-barred – Matter needs to be placed before the Hon’ble Chief Justice of India to constitute an appropriate three-judge bench.

May 12, 2024 sclaw
Consumer

Consumer Law – Policy Claim – The appellants, family of the deceased, filed a complaint after the LIC repudiated their claim on a policy following the policyholder’s accidental death – The main issue was whether there was a concluded contract between the deceased and LIC at the time of his death, which would obligate LIC to pay the insurance benefits – The appellants argued that LIC had accepted the first premium and issued a receipt, thereby assuming risk and concluding the contract before the policyholder’s death – LIC contended that the policy was not communicated to the deceased and was blocked due to his demise, implying no concluded contract existed – The Supreme Court set aside the NCDRC’s order, restored the District Forum’s order in favor of the appellants, and directed LIC to pay the insurance benefits as per the policy terms – The Court found clear presumption of acceptance of the policy by LIC, as the first premium receipt indicated the corporation was on risk from the receipt date – The Court relied on precedents that establish the principles of insurance contracts and the obligations of good faith expected from insurers – The Supreme Court concluded that LIC had indeed entered into a contract with the policyholder before his death, and thus, was liable to pay the insurance benefits to the appellants.

May 12, 2024 sclaw