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 Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi Veerpal Kaur v. State of Punjab, CRWP No. 6232 of 2025, decided on 27-8-2025 Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a petition, filed by the petitioner(‘mother’), under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to direct the respondent(‘father’) to hand over the custody of their 4-year-old child, a Single Judge Bench of Sumeet Goel J., while dismissing the petition held that the writ of Habeas Corpus was not a substitute for meticulous and evidence-based determination of custody dispute and was not to be utilized as a subterfuge to circumvent the proper statutory forums and its exerci...

Recently, the Delhi High Court declined to suspend the interim visitation rights between a minor son and his mother and sister in an ongoing custody dispute. The Court underscored that continued interaction was necessary for nurturing family bonds and observed that suspending visitation at this stage would not serve the welfare of the children. The case arises from a matrimonial dispute where custody of two children is contested between their parents. Earlier, the Family Court granted interim custody of both children to the mother, with visitation rights for the father. While the daughter has since chosen to reside with her mother, the younger son continues to stay with his father. The High Court had previously structured an arrangement to facilitate regular interaction between the children and their mother. The father moved an application seeking suspension of the visitation arrangement, alleging that the son felt uncomfortable and emotionally disturbed after interacting with his moth...

X v. State of West Bengal, CRR 2610 of 2019, decided on 28-07-2025. Calcutta High Court: The petitioner approached the Court seeking quashing of criminal proceedings arising from an FIR lodged over alleged workplace harassment, which had resulted in a chargesheet under Section 509 of the Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’). The allegations pertained to incidents between 2016-2017, reported over a year after the complainant’s resignation. A Single Judge Bench of Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J., while allowing the petition, held that only using the words “harassed” or “abused”, did not demonstrate the requisite intention or knowledge which could lead to the conclusion that any alleged act of the petitioner constituted an insult to the complainant’s modesty. The Court emphasised that mere harassment at workplace or abusing her at workplace might not constitute an offence under Section 509 IPC, unless essential ingredients were fulfilled.  Decision: The Court examined the ingredients to constitute an of...

Case Title: ARP vs State of Maharashtra (Criminal Application 900 of 2025) The Bombay High Court recently while quashing a section 498A IPC case against a family observed that marital discords have now-a-days become a menace in the society and that because of the two persons fighting over petty issues, the concept of marriage, which is 'sacrosanct' for Hindus is suffering a setback. A division bench of Justices Nitin Sambre and Mahendra Nerlikar noted the 'trend' of women filing FIR against as many relatives of the husband as possible and said thus there is a need to look at matrimonial discord matters from a 'different' angle. "Needless to mention that considering the recent trend of filing first information reports against as many as persons from husband side, has become imperative to look the matters of matrimonial disputes from a different angle, and therefore, if the parties settle their disputes amicably in order to live peacefully, it is the duty of ...