Best Divorce Lawyer Contact Number 8595722509

Supreme Court Upholds Woman’s Right to Residence in Matrimonial Home | Legal Insights The Supreme Court has reaffirmed a woman’s right to residence in a shared household , emphasizing that she cannot be evicted merely due to family disputes or personal disagreements. This landmark observation strengthens protections under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (DV Act) . 🔑 Key Highlights of the Judgment The bench of Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Ajay Rastogi stated that: “Sending away a woman just because you cannot stand her face will not be allowed by this court.” The Court recognized a woman’s right to reside : In her matrimonial home At her mother’s house At her mother-in-law’s residence However, the Court clarified: This right is not absolute Courts may impose conditions in cases of misconduct or disputes ⚖️ Case Background A woman challenged a Bombay High Court order directing her and her husband to vacate her father-in-law’s property. The father-in-law ...

⚖️  Delhi High Court: Interim Maintenance Should Normally Start from the Date of Application In an important ruling, the  Delhi High Court  reaffirmed that  interim maintenance under Section 125 of the  Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973  should ordinarily be granted  from the date of filing of the application , unless the court records  strong and cogent reasons  for granting it from a later date. 📌  Key Highlights of the Judgment In  Sanyogita Gupta & Ors. vs. Ashok Kumar Gupta (Crl.Rev.P. 520/2024) , the Court observed that  maintenance laws are social welfare measures  intended to prevent  destitution and financial hardship for dependent spouses and children . The ruling strengthens the rights of  wives and children seeking maintenance  and ensures  timely financial support during ongoing matrimonial disputes . 👨‍⚖️  Advocate Devashish Maharishi Best Divorce & Criminal Case Lawyer in Ka...

Kerala High Court: In an intra-court transfer appeal arising from an order allowing transfer of a matrimonial original petition from one Family Court to another at the instance of the wife, the question was whether, at an advanced stage of trial, such transfer could be justified on the ground that the wife practices at the Court where the case was pending. The Division Bench of Sathish Ninan and P. Krishna Kumar*, JJ., set aside the transfer order, and held that transferring matrimonial case to another court at such an advance trial stage was unsustainable, highly unjustified and improper, particularly in view of the mediated settlement wherein both parties had agreed to cooperate for an expeditious disposal before the same court. Analysis and Decision The Court noted that in the transfer petition, the wife stated that it would be serious prejudice to her in participating in the trial at the Kollam Court Centre, which was her workplace, and that the distance from her residence to Punal...

⚖️ Important Update in Matrimonial Law | Electronic Evidence Admissible in Divorce Cases The Chhattisgarh High Court has ruled that WhatsApp chats, call recordings, and other electronic communications between spouses can be considered as evidence in divorce proceedings. Hon’ble Justice Sachin Singh Rajput observed that while the right to privacy is a personal right, the right to a fair trial has wider implications in ensuring justice. In Family Court matters, relevance of evidence is more important than the mode of collection . This judgment is significant for: ✔️ Contested Divorce Cases ✔️ Domestic Violence Matters ✔️ Maintenance & Alimony Disputes ✔️ Child Custody Cases If you are facing a complex matrimonial dispute at Karkardooma Court or anywhere in Delhi , timely legal advice is essential. 📞 Need Legal Help? Consult Advocate Devashish Maharishi   | Best Divorce Case Lawyer in Karkardooma Court Delhi for: ✅ Mutual & Contested Divorce ✅ Domestic Violenc...

Supreme Court to Decide If Live-In Partner Can Be Prosecuted Under Section 498A IPC & Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita In a significant development with far-reaching implications for criminal and matrimonial law, the Supreme Court of India has stepped in to examine whether a man in a live-in relationship —described legally as a “relationship in the nature of marriage”—can be prosecuted for cruelty under Section 498A IPC or its equivalent provision under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS) . A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh has stayed further proceedings in the matter while framing the core legal issue for authoritative determination. 🔎 Background of the Case The matter arose from a complaint filed by a woman alleging: Cruelty and physical harassment Dowry demands Attempt to burn her Abuse during a live-in relationship The accused, who reportedly had a subsisting marriage, approached the Karnataka High Court seeking quashing of the case, arg...

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...