Best Divorce Lawyer Contact Number 8595722509

Case no. – SLP(C) No. 21195/2021 The Supreme Court on Monday (July 14) set aside the Punjab & Haryana High Court's judgment that held that recording a wife's telephonic conversation without her knowledge amounts to a "clear breach" of her fundamental right of privacy and cannot be admitted in evidence before a Family Court. A bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma thus held that a secretly recorded telephonic conversation of the spouse is admissible as evidence in matrimonial proceedings. Section 122 of the Indian Evidence Act bars disclosure of marital communications without consent, except in legal proceedings between the spouses or where one is prosecuted for a crime against the other. The Court stated that the spousal privilege under the first part of the section cannot be absolute and must be read in light of the exception provided in the same provision. “Exception under Section 122 has to be construed in light of the right to a fair...

Case Details:- Bronson Barthol Dias v. Central Adoption Resource Authority, Writ Petition No. 3506 of 2025, decided on 7-4-2025 Bombay High Court: In a case wherein, the petitioners having two biological children suffering from disabilities, wanted to adopt a third normal child, but their application was rejected, the Division Bench of G.S. Kulkarni and Advait M. Sethna, JJ. opined that in complex and emotional mindset, the parents of the children with disabilities naturally would have an intense dedication, desire, and happiness to receive a normal child in adoption to balance their life and to have an experience to raise a normal child, which they were missing. The Court opined that it could never be the intention of the statutory mandate that a couple which already had disabled children could be barred from adopting a normal child. The Court thus directed the respondents to reconsider the petitioners’ application in accordance with law and by applying the power of relaxation under R...

Bombay High Court sends man to civil prison for not paying maintenance to wife, kids The Bench criticized the husband, a doctor, for disregarding his wife and children's well-being and failing to comply with court orders to pay maintenance. The Bombay High Court recently sentenced a doctor to six months in civil prison for repeatedly refusing to pay maintenance to his wife and two children despite multiple court orders. [Dr Sangita Ganvir v Dr Manish Ganvir] The Court found Dr. Manish Ganvir guilty of willfully disobeying a series of directives, causing prolonged hardships to his family. A Bench of Justices GS Kulkarni and Advait M Sethna sharply criticized the doctor’s conduct, stating, “The contemnor has no respect for the rule of law, he has no regard to the orders passed by this Court.” The court expressed its displeasure over the doctor’s attempts to avoid compliance. “The contemnor not only had least regard to the orders passed by this Court, but also, a reasonable fai...

S v. S, Writ Petition No. 3499 of 2020, decided on 1-7-2025 Bombay High Court: The present writ petition was filed by the petitioner-wife, challenging the order of the Family Court which accepted the respondent-husband’s request for conducting DNA Profiling Test to decide the legitimacy of the child born to them. A Single Judge Bench of R.M. Joshi, J., set aside the Family Court order and held that it was the duty of the Court to consider pros and cons before calling upon the minor to undergo a blood or DNA test. Background: The parties got married on 18-12-2011. On 19-1-2013, when the wife left the matrimonial home, she was three months pregnant. The husband issued a notice to the wife on 28-1-2013, calling upon her to come back for cohabitation. Thereafter, a petition for judicial separation was filed by the husband on 8-2-2013, before the Family Court. The wife also filed a petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights. The husband then withdrew the proceedings filed for judicial ...

The Kerala High Court recently reiterated that courts should adopt a practical approach while dealing with petitions filed by married women for the return of gold ornaments that they may have entrusted to their in-laws at the matrimonial home. A Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice MB Snehalatha observed that newly married women often entrust their jewellery to their in-laws in good faith, without documentation or independent witnesses. In such a scenario, it is impractical to expect the married women to keep receipts or provide strict proof of their handing over jewellery to their in-laws, it opined. "A newly wedded woman would not be in a position to demand receipts or independent witnesses while handing over the jewellery to the husband or in-laws. Due to the domestic and informal nature of such transactions, she would not be in a position to produce documents or independent witnesses to prove entrustment," the Court explained. Thus, when cases are file...

State of Gujarat v. Paresh Shantilal, R/ Crl. Appeal No. 1029 of 2014, decided on 27-6-2025. Gujarat High Court: In a criminal appeal filed against the judgement dated 28-5-2014 passed by the Trial Court, whereby the accused persons were acquitted of the charges under Sections 498-A, 306, 304-B and 114 of the Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) read with Sections 3 and 7 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (Dowry Act), the Division Bench of Cheekati Manavendranath Roy* and D. M. Vyas, JJ, upheld the Trial Court’s order of acquittal and stated that petty quarrels and bickering that are common in family life do not amount to ‘cruelty’ under Section 498-A of the IPC and cannot be called dowry harassment. 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 divorc...

Section 193 IPC When can perjury Proceedings Be Initiated Against A Litigant Supreme Court Explains While quashing a perjury proceeding against a litigant, the Supreme Court laid down the yardsticks which should be fulfilled for initiating proceedings for the offence of perjury under Section 193 of Indian Penal Code, 1860. The bench comprising Justice BR Gavai, Justices Sanjay Karol and KV Viswanathan was deciding an appeal preferred by a litigant against the decision of the Uttarakhand High Court directing the registration of a complaint under Section 193 of IPC against the appellant for filing a false affidavit before the Court in a bail cancellation proceeding. The appellant was an accused in a case of rape over a false pretext of marriage. He was granted bail by the High Court. The complainant in the rape case thereafter filed an application to cancel the bail. The High Court rejected the bail cancellation plea but issued directions for the registration of FIR for an offence of per...