No marriage to a Muslim could mean automatic conversion from Hinduism to Islam In a recent verdict related to a partition suit, the Delhi High Court ruled that merely marrying a Muslim man would not tantamount to converting from Hinduism to Islam The suit was filed by the eldest child of a man from his first marriage against her father and her two half brothers from his second marriage. The partition suit was filed in 2007. The father died in December 2008, while the suit was pending. The father opposed the suit and claimed that the eldest daughter had ceased to be a Hindu as she had married a Muslim of Pakistani origin in the United Kingdom and the suit was therefore not maintainable. The court found that the burden was on the defendants to prove that the eldest daughter had converted to Islam to marry. Thus the Court found that the defendants had not established their "conversion" claim. The court observed that there was no formal declaration renouncing Hinduism or undergoing conversion process. The eldest daughter said in her affidavit that she practiced Hinduism even after the civil marriage. There is no automatic conversion from Hinduism to Islam by virtue of marrying a Muslim, the court said. Marrying a post-1974 convert was not proof in itself of formal conversion.
In the wake of a severe shortage of healthcare personnel in Karnataka, the High Court there has issued key directions to shore up the bedraggled State’s healthcare infrastructure. A division bench recently directed the Karnataka High Court to form a three-member committee to include the Secretary of State Department of Health and Family Welfare. The committee will monitor implement framework for upgradation of medical institutions/ infrastructure at city, district and rural levels. The court had taken suo-motu cognisance of a public interest litigation based on a news report published in The New Indian Express, which stated that Karnataka had a deficit of 16,500 medical personnel. The right to health and medical care is a fundamental right and as such imposes a constitutional mandate on the state to ensure that there are sufficient medical facilities, the court said. The state government must be proactive with medical infrastructure, especially in rural areas, where healthcare requirements are often neglected, the Bench said.
The Supreme Court of India quashed a workplace harassment case involving a female employee and her colleagues. The employee, who was female, accused her coworkers of making her resign under threat of being fired, of taking her things and of being physically and verbally harassed. She also alleged that her intellectual property on a company laptop had been illegally seized. The Court of Appeal held that the allegations were of embellished employment disputes being elevated to criminal matters, with the objective of pressuring the appellants into settling the dispute. A bench of justices Dipankar Datta and Prashant Kumar Mishra said the complaint did not fulfill the ingredients of the alleged offenses. The Apex Court quashed the High Court order which had refused to quash the criminal proceedings. It ruled that the criminal proceedings had been launched with mala fide intent to harm or to coerce for a settlement. The Court held that none of the allegations satisfied the necessary legal funding for criminal charges to be brought under IPC. The SUPREME COURT permitted the appeal and quashed the pending criminal case against the appellants holding, that the complaint did not provide the necessary factual basis that would constitute the alleged offenses.
This was stated recently by Allahabad High Court in a bail matter of a man accused for heinous offences punishable under the Protection of Children from Sexual Offences (POCSO) Act, Indian Penal Code (IPC) &wureg;nd Dowry Prohibition (DP) Act. The accused has been booked under section 498-A (cruelty), 323 (voluntarily causing hurt), 504 (intentional insult), 506 (criminal intimidation), 363 (kidnapping), 366A (procuration of minor girl), 427 (mischief) and 376(2)(N) (rape) for harassing his wife for dowry and luring her minor sister and committing aggravated penetrative sexual assault on her. The complainant was married to the applicant about six years before. After she had given birth to their daughter, she had continued to face harassment and violence over dowry -- forcing her to live with her parents, she had alleged. The applicant purportedly lured the complainant's minor sister (aged around 16 years) in February 2023. After getting arrested he was released on bail, but again in August 2023 he allegedly lured the minor sister. The accused sought anticipatory bail, contending that the minor sister had stated the sex was consensual and filed an affidavit in his favour. He further added that the complainant's father had taken Rs. 2,00,000 as a loan, which became a reason behind the false accusation against him. It also noted that the victim is a minor (approximately 17 years old) and that her consent is irrelevant under the law. The court said that this was the second time the person had lured the minor victim and thus Section 29 of the POCSO Act, which presumes guilt unless proven otherwise by the accused, will apply here. Holding the activities of the applicant as a serious violation of marital trust and family integrity, the court noted: "It has caused emotional trauma to his wife and also caused a great breakage of harmony in the family.
A Hindu marriage cannot be dissolved within the meaning of a decree of divorce on the grounds of mutual incompatibility but after expiry of 365 days from the date of marriage, unless exceptional circumstances, like exceptional hardship and extraordinary depravity, are shown to be existing [in terms of Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955]. The couple who sought a mutual dissolution of their marriage under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. The Principal Judge of the Family Court in Saharanpur dismissed their petition on the grounds that the one-year statutory period requisite for the filing of such applications was far from being completed. of Section 14, which prohibits petitions for divorce within a year of the marriage, except for cases of exceptional hardship or depravity. The couple’s assertion of mutual incompatibility was found by the court to be insufficient to satisfy that standard. The petition, as submitted, failed to show any exceptional circumstances warranting a waiver to the one-year waiting period, the division bench of Justice Ashwini Kumar Mishra and Justice Donadi Ramesh observed. They said that routine grounds such as mutual incompatibility do not amount to exceptional circumstances. The court noted the sanctity of marriage under Hindu law and said dissolution of Hindu marriage can happen only on a legally recognised ground. It added that the one-year wait has a purpose, giving couples time to think about their decision before they divorce. Although the appeal of the Family Court order was dismissed, the fact that a fresh application for divorce was permitted, and to be made after a period of one year expired. This decision strengthens the legal provisions regarding divorce in Hindu marriages, stressing the necessity of sound rationale when attempting to terminate a marriage within the first year of such marriage
When weighing the merits of applying punishment to crimes, the Supreme Court also attaches great weight to intentions. If a potential convict were to become a recidivist it would most certainly affect punishment for what might otherwise be allowed as normal. The court pondered whether to resort to the death penalty was merited in light of the cruel nature of the crime. It found that although this was a highly execrable crime, it did not rise to this level.
Such contention is to be rejected, particularly when it is evident that the conviction under Section 498A of IPC is based on the refusal of the appellant to cooperate with the arrangements for the wedding reception unless his demand for 100 sovereigns of gold as dowry is met, the bench said while dismissing the appeal and upholding the conviction. The marriage lasted three days after an engagement in 2006. Post-proposal, however, bridegroom's kin refused to throw them a wedding reception unless they coughed up 100 sovereigns of gold. The bride's family did not accept this demand. The groom and his family did not permit customary practices to be conducted at the marriage ceremony. While they went to the reception, the groom’s father pulled him out from the reception dais and he refused to return to the jaimala — despite all efforts by the bride’s relatives. It also said the bridegroom had harassed his wife (PW-4) in order to pressurise her and her mother to meet the illegal dowry demand. The testimonies from family members and a photographer before the courts revealed that the groom's family was vengeful and refused to cooperate in the wedding events. Reaffirming that all ingredients of Section 498A IPC were satisfied in the case, Supreme Court held that the act committed by the groom in this case amounted to cruelty for which he would be liable in law; But factoring in mitigating circumstances — including the marriage’s short duration and the lives both members of the couple went on to lead — it adjusted his sentence to time served. No voluntary offer of compensation was made, however, in the special circumstances of the case, the court directed the appellant to pay a compensation of Rs. 3,00,000 for the children of the de facto complainant.
The order was issued by a Bench comprising Chief Justice of India (CJI) Sanjiv Khanna and Justices PV Sanjay Kumar and KV Viswanathan. The Court instructed that within seven days, registrars of the concerned High Courts must transfer all case-related documents to the Delhi High Court, where the matter is scheduled for hearing on March 3.
The Supreme Court in Satendra Kumar Anil v. CBI reaffirmed that notices under Section 41-A CrPC, 1973, and Section 35 BNSS, 2023, cannot be served via WhatsApp or other electronic messaging platforms.
After spending more than seven years in custody without his trial finishing, a man accused of murder was recently released on bail by the Allahabad High Court.Justice Krishan Pahal said he was sorry to have had kept the applicant for so long, but insisted that it was unjust and unnecessary below an honest expectation his trial would finish.The applicant's initial application for bail was turned down in 2020, this knocked him off balance and caused him to make a second application in 2024 because his trial had not got underway.
According to Kerala High Court, a marriage of an Indian citizen and someone who is not, conducted outside India can register under the Foreign Marriage Act now. Conversely, marriages between two persons can be registered and solemnized in India under the Special Marriage Act. It was pointed out that the Foreign Marriage Act recognizes those marriage solemnized under foreign laws and allows them to be registered. It was pointed out that,although it would have repercussions for the teaching of international diplomacy and a disadvantageous effect on Indian students who want qualifications from British universities without ever having gone overseas in fact for study purposes first, there is point in taking an academic degree abroad.
The apex court clarified that forfeiting a reasonable earnest money deposit is not a penalty within the meaning of Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. It pointed out earnest money is forfeited form of security for the purpose performance upon one’s part but All was based out by both courts, there could be no exorbitant or punitive forfeiture. However a moderate amount of forfeiture is not to be described as a penalty.
The Supreme Court criticized magistrates for routinely ordering police investigations without proper consideration from a Judge. It emphasized that magistrates should not merely act as "post offices" in forwarding reports and charges to other authorities. Magistrates have to apply their judicial minds in each case. The Court pointed out: Magistrates may order police investigations only when justice requires it. This is true in cases where they deal with complex allegations which cannot without police expertise be sorted out. And in each such instance, the order must be specific, clear about what type of offense is to be investigated.
The Punjab & Haryana High Court had been asked to determine what constitutes the offence of mischief under Section 425 Indian Penal Code (IPC).The Court stressed that to prove mischief without dispute willful damage must occur to someone else's property causing its value or usefulness be reduced.Mere loss is not enough of itself. A criminal intent that can be proven must also be there. Rather, all those alleged wrongs in the complaint, Justice Manisha Batra went on, were without specific details or proof. Not just any such information matter of fact but none at all was available to back up the claim that the house had been damaged. No photographs, videos or documents were produced showing any increase in value of the land due to improvements made by construction. The Court observed that the complainants had been pursuing civil remedies in respect of the contentious land. It held that seeing a civil dispute as crime constituted an abuse of legal process.
In a latest high court decision, a member of the public accused murder was granted bail although facing charges for seven years and nine months. The court referred to previous rulings, such as Indrani Pratim Mukerjea vs CBI when bail was granted because of lengthy incarceration, and V. Senthil Balaji vs the Deputy Director, Directorate of Enforcement which drew attention to the fact that delay in the trial should be considered when granting bail. he Court emphasized that lengthy imprisonment without trial infringes basic human right as endowed by the Constitution of India's Article 21--the right to a speedy and public trial.