Best Divorce Lawyer Contact Number 8595722509

⚖️ Supreme Court on Women’s Right to Residence A significant observation by the Supreme Court reinforces that a woman cannot be thrown out of her matrimonial home just because of family disputes. 👩‍⚖️ The Court held: ✔️ A woman has the right to reside in a shared household ✔️ She cannot be evicted without due legal process ✔️ This right applies even if she has no ownership in the property 📌 However, the Court also clarified that this right is not absolute and reasonable conditions may be imposed in case of disputes. 💡 This judgment strengthens protections under the Domestic Violence Act and ensures dignity and security for women in matrimonial homes. 👨‍⚖️ Need Legal Help in Divorce or Domestic Violence Case? Advocate Devashish Maharishi |  Best Divorce & Family Case Lawyer in Karkardooma Court, Delhi  ✔️ Divorce (Mutual & Contested) ✔️ Domestic Violence Cases ✔️ Maintenance & Alimony ✔️ Child Custody Matters ✔️ CAW Cell Complaints Maintenance & Alimony C...

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...