Best Divorce Lawyer Contact Number 8595722509

Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi The Delhi High Court has held that complaint in a Cheque Bounce Case can be filed under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act after drawer fails to make payment within 15 days of service of demand notice. The Court was considering a Petition seeking quashing of an order passed by the Trial Magistrate, whereby the Petitioner was summoned to face trial under Section 138 of Negotiable Instruments Act. The single judge bench of Justice Girish Kathpalia held, "So far as the complaint being premature, the argument is completely devoid of merit. The period of 45 days under reference is not a lump sum consolidated period; it is 15 days (after service of statutory notice, to pay vide proviso (c) to Section 138 of the Act) plus 30 days (t...

Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi The Allahabad High Court has held that if the application has been filed under Section 125 CrPC by an unmarried daughter after attaining majority, it can be converted into a suit under Section 20 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 and after dealing with the application as suit for maintenance and adopting the procedure as prescribed under the provision of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, the Court can order for maintenance to avoid multiplicity of suits. The Criminal Revision was filed against the order passed in a case registered under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) by the Principal Judge, Family Court, District Sultanpur. The Single Bench of Justice Rajnish Kumar stated, “In view of above, it cannot be di...

Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi Case no. – S.L.P. (C) No. 7900 of 2019 and connected cases Case Title – Vinod Kumar Pandey & Anr. v. Seesh Ram Saini & Ors. and connected cases The Supreme Court reiterated that the police is not required to go into the genuineness or credibility of a complaint at the stage of registering FIR; if the complaint prima facie discloses a cognizable offence, then the police is bound to register the FIR. "It ...

Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi If a person is absent beyond prescribed period for which leave can be granted, he is said to have resigned. Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Technical and Education Society v. Smt. Indira Madhukar  Muraskar & Ors., 2025 LLR 832 (Bom. HC) Best divorce lawyer Civil case lawyer Partition Case Lawyer Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court delhi  Top divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court delhi  Maintenance case lawyer in karkarkardooma Court delhi Domestic violence case lawyer in karkardooma Court delhi Transfer petition case lawyer NRI mutual consent divorce case lawyer Matrimonial dispute case lawyer Lawyer for interim maintenance case in karkarkardooma Court delhi Best divorce case lawyer in East delhiAdvocate Devashish ...

Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi In SG v. DG, decided on 9 September 2025, the Delhi High Court clarified that a wife cannot be denied maintenance simply because she applied after her husband filed for divorce. The bench of Justices Anil Kshetarpal and Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar held that the right to seek maintenance under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act continues to exist during divorce proceedings, regardless of who approached the court first. This ruling overturned the family court’s order and emphasized the importance of financial support during litigation.  Facts of the Case The couple married in 2009. Before marriage, the wife had worked for about three and a half years. Later she moved to Singapore for employment. After giving birth, she returned to India ...

Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi

Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi Ravi Prakash Saxena v. Priyanka Rani, Criminal Revision No. 676 of 2024, decided on 04-09-2025 Patna High Court: In a criminal revision petition filed by the petitioner challenging a final order of maintenance passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, a Single-Judge Bench of Bibek Chaudhuri, J., while quashing and setting aside the maintenance order, held that the trial court failed to consider suppression of material facts, income of the parties, their source of income, their assets and liabilities and other similar factors, which are required to be considered for determination of maintenance allowance. Background The instant petition was filed by the petitioner challenging an order dated 24-05-2024, which directed him to pay mai...

Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi Telangana High Court: In a Habeas Corpus petition filed by the petitioner (‘mother’) directing the respondents to produce the minor child suffering before the Court and hand over the custody of the child to the mother, the Division Bench of Moushumi Bhattacharya and Gadi Praveen Kumar*, JJ, observed that the child was suffering from 50 per cent disability and the mother did not have the means to look after the child. The Court therefore held that there was no illegal detention by the father and it would be in the best interest of the child to stay with him. The mother and the father had been married since 2016 as per Christian rites and rituals and had a child out of the wedlock. The mother submitted that due to harassment and cruelty meted ...

Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi Karnataka High Court: In a writ of habeas corpus, filed by a 72-year-old petitioner seeking the production of her missing son, a Division Bench of Anu Sivaraman and Rajesh Rai K.* JJ., dismissed the petition holding it to be frivolous, an abuse of the court’s process and filed with an ulterior motive to harass the jurisdictional police. The Court imposed punitive cost of ₹2,00,000 on the petitioner. The petitioner’s son was allegedly missing since 07-07-2025. She had filed a previous writ petition which was later withdrawn on 24-07-2025, on the ground that certain erroneous statements were made in the writ petition by oversight. Subsequently, she filed a complaint with the Director General and Inspector General of Police to trace her son. As...

Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi The Himachal Pradesh High Court has observed that a statement made by a co-accused to the police during investigation is inadmissible in evidence, as it is hit by Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), and therefore and cannot be used as a piece of evidence. The Court was hearing a criminal revision petition filed by the complainant challenging the acquittal recorded by the Trial Court and affirmed by the Appellate Court in a case involving allegations of land purchase through forged documents. A Bench comprising Justice Rakesh Kainthla, while referring to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Dipakbhai Jagdishchandra Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2019) observed: “…statement made by co-accused during the investigation is hit by Section ...

Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi Gujarat High Court: In a common judgement adjudging two appeals filed by the appellant (‘wife’) against the Family Court order dated 31-3-2023 (‘impugned order’), wherein the Family Court had rejected the wife’s plaint for declaration of a divorce decree passed by Australian Court as null and void and for restitution of conjugal rights; the Division Bench of A.Y. Kogje and N.S. Sanjay Gowda*, JJ, set aside the impugned order and held that the respondent (‘husband’) could not have initiated divorce proceedings in an Australian Court when the marriage had been solemnized in India even though the parties had acquired foreign domicile. The wife and the husband had been married since 2008. Their marriage had been duly solemnized as per Hindu ritu...

Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court DelhiBest divorce lawyer Madhya Pradesh High Court: In an appeal filed against the Trial Court’s judgment wherein the appellant- husband’s divorce plea was dismissed, the Division Bench of Vishal Dhagat and Anuradha Shukla*, JJ., allowed the appeal, holding that the dreadful act of self-immolation was sufficient to hold that the respondent-wife committed mental cruelty against the husband and the Trial Court erred in not appreciating the evident facts and even more so, in replacing them with its own perceived notions.  Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court delhi  Top divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court delhi  Maintenance case lawyer in karkarkardooma Court delhi Domestic violence case lawyer in karkardooma Court delhi Tr...

Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court DelhiAdvocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court DelhiAdvocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court DelhiAdvocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court DelhiAdvocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi The Patna High Court has held that before passing a final order of maintenance, Family Courts are under a statutory obligation to direct parties to file affidavits of assets and liabilities and that only after considering such affidavits can the status of the parties, their assets, needs, and earning capacities be evaluated to determine the appropriate amount of maintenance. The High Court was hearing a criminal revision petition filed by a husband challenging an order of the Family Court, which had directed him to pay monthly maintenance of ₹20,000 to his wife, arguing that the ord...

Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi The Supreme Court observed that FIRs or charge-sheets may be quashed under Article 226 before cognisance is taken, but once cognisance is taken, the remedy lies under Section 528 BNSS (S. 482 CrPC) to challenge both the FIR/charge-sheet and even the cognisance order, if duly pleaded. “So long cognisance of the offence is not taken, a writ or order to quash the FIR/charge-sheet could be issued under Article 226; however, once a judicial order of taking cognisance intervenes, the power under Article 226 though not available to be exercised, power under Section 528, BNSS was availa...

Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court DelhiBest divorce lawyer Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court delhi  Top divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court delhi  Maintenance case lawyer in karkarkardooma Court delhi Domestic violence case lawyer in karkardooma Court delhi Transfer petition case lawyer NRI mutual consent divorce case lawyer Matrimonial dispute case lawyer Lawyer for interim maintenance case in karkarkardooma Court delhi Best divorce case lawyer in East delhi Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi +91 85957 22509 Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best ...

Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi Recently, the  Bombay High Court  held that while grandparents may share a close bond with their grandchildren, such affection cannot override the legal rights of the child’s parents. In this case, a 74-year-old woman had been caring for her five-year-old grandson, as the boy’s parents were occupied with looking after his twin brother, who suffers from cerebral palsy. When property disputes arose, the child’s father asked his mother to hand over custody. She refused, insisting that she had raised the boy since birth and that they shared a strong emotional connection. The father then approached the High Court seeking custody. The Division Bench of  Justice Ravindra Ghuge  and  Justice Gautam Ankhad  observed,...