Best Divorce Lawyer Contact Number 8595722509

Delhi High Court Orders Criminal Complaint in Fortis–Walmark Arbitration Dispute The Delhi High Court has reaffirmed that no prior hearing is mandatory under Section 340 CrPC (now Section 379 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 ) before directing the filing of a criminal complaint. In a major development, Justice Amit Bansal ordered prosecution in the Fortis Healthcare v. Walmark Holdings dispute after finding that Walmark relied on an allegedly forged term sheet to seek interim relief under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 . 🔍 The Court held that: The disputed term sheet was never executed by Fortis It did not bear the authentic signature of Fortis’s then CEO Walmark officials were aware of this fact while approaching the Court Relying on Pritish v. State of Maharashtra (2002) , the Court reiterated that Section 340 CrPC does not require a preliminary inquiry or hearing of the accused before filing a complaint. 📄 The Registr...

Supreme Court Dissolves Marriage Lasting Just 65 Days After 13 Years of Litigation A Landmark Judgment on Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage In a significant ruling highlighting the misuse of prolonged matrimonial litigation, the  Supreme Court of India dissolved a marriage that lasted only 65 days , bringing an end to a  13-year legal battle involving over 40 cases across multiple courts . The Apex Court held that when a marriage has  collapsed beyond repair , forcing parties to remain legally bound serves no purpose and only  perpetuates judicial abuse . Case Background The couple married in  January 2012 , but the relationship broke down within weeks. The wife left the matrimonial home alleging cruelty, and what followed was  a decade-long barrage of criminal and civil proceedings  across courts in  Delhi and Uttar Pradesh . Seeking final closure, the wife approached the Supreme Court invoking  Article 142 of the Constitution , requesting...

Expert Legal Assistance for Domestic Violence, Divorce, Maintenance, Transfer Petition and Custody Cases in Delhi Are you dealing with a complex matrimonial dispute or facing domestic abuse? You don't have to navigate this challenging journey alone. Get expert legal assistance from Advocate Devashish Maharishi , a top lawyer specializing in contested divorce cases , restitution of conjugal rights , domestic violence cases , and maintenance-related disputes in Delhi . Legal Services Offered by Advocate Devashish Maharishi: Contested Divorce : Comprehensive representation in contested divorce cases where both spouses disagree on the divorce and its terms. Mutual Consent Divorce : Assistance in filing and finalizing mutual consent divorce petitions to ensure a smooth and amicable separation. Domestic Violence Protection : Legal support under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (PWDV Act) to safeguard women from abuse, including physical, emotional, verbal, and e...

Chhattisgarh High Court Clarifies Maintenance Law | Expert Divorce Lawyer in Delhi – Adv. Devashish Maharishi The Chhattisgarh High Court has recently reaffirmed an important legal principle in matrimonial law: 👉 A wife who voluntarily lives separately from her husband without sufficient legal justification is not entitled to maintenance. In this case, the Court upheld a Bilaspur Family Court order denying maintenance to a woman who chose to live apart despite her husband filing a petition for restitution of conjugal rights . The Court observed that mere allegations of harassment or dowry demand, without strong supporting evidence, cannot automatically grant maintenance when separation is voluntary. This judgment is a crucial reminder for parties involved in maintenance cases, domestic violence complaints, and contested divorce matters . ⚖️ Legal Insight by Advocate Devashish Maharishi (Best Divorce & Matrimonial Lawyer in Karkardooma Court, Delhi) As an experienced div...

📌  Delhi High Court on Child Custody & Parental Alienation In a significant ruling, the  Delhi High Court  upheld the  Family Court’s decision granting custody of two minor children to the father , rejecting the mother’s appeal in a long-running matrimonial and custody dispute. ⚖️  Key Takeaways from the Judgment ✔️  Child’s welfare is paramount  – overrides parental entitlement ✔️  Tender years doctrine questioned  as outdated and stereotypical ✔️  Parental alienation strongly deprecated ✔️  Child’s preference not decisive  if influenced by alienation ✔️  Siblings should not be separated ✔️ Custody ≠ end of motherhood –  shared parental responsibility continues 🧠 The Court observed that  custody cannot be claimed as a fait accompli by excluding the other parent , and allegations of abuse raised belatedly without evidence cannot dictate custody outcomes. 👨‍⚖️  Bench:  Justice Anil Kshetarpal ...

Advocate Devashish Maharishi | Best divorce case lawyer in karkardooma Court Delhi Top lawyer for Contested Divorce case, Restitution of Conjugal Rights, Domestic violence case, CAW cell Complaint case, Quashing petition and for Mutual Consent Divorce case in Delhi 📞 Need Legal Help? If you're facing domestic abuse or going through a complex matrimonial dispute, I’m here to help. I offer consultations for: ✅ Mutual or contested divorce case ✅ Domestic violence protection ✅ Maintenance case, Alimony case Or Interim maintenance and custody ✅ Transfer petitions and NRI divorce matters 📍 Office: 137, J-Extension, Laxmi Nagar, Delhi, 110092 📞 Contact: 8595722509

Recently, a Delhi court examined the scope and object of interim maintenance under the criminal procedure law in a matrimonial dispute that raised significant questions about financial support, earning capacity, and the right of a wife to live with dignity after separation. The case involved competing claims regarding income, standard of living during marriage, and the extent of a husband’s statutory responsibility, particularly when he resides abroad. The case arose from an application filed by the wife seeking interim maintenance under Section 144 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS). She claimed that following her separation from her husband, she was unable to maintain herself and had become dependent on her family for daily expenses. According to her, she had enjoyed a particular standard of living during the marriage, which could not be abruptly taken away after separation. The husband opposed the claim, asserting that the marriage had lasted only about 13 months and t...