Here is the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 updated up to 31 October 2019
Here is the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890
The index for all four (4) Hindu Personal Laws is here.
Author: ShadesOfKnife
The Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956
Here is the Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956 updated up to 31 October 2019
The index for all four (4) Hindu Personal Laws is here.
The Hindu Succession Act, 1956
Here is the Hindu Succession Act 1956 updated up to 2005 amendment
The index for all four (4) Hindu Personal Laws is here.
Hindu Personal Code Laws
Hindu Personal Laws are codified into the following four (4) laws.
Krishna Kumar (Minor) Vs State of Haryana on 24 July 2020
Justice Madaan held that, the JJ Act did not prohibit the provision/protection of anticipatory bail available u/s 438 CrPC so it cannot be said that such relief is not available to the petitioner. So he granted anticipatory bail to the accused.
Satpal Singh Vs State of Punjab on 15 July 2020
Sensible Judge understood the nefarious arrangement between two parties to marriage, more as a contract to immigrate to Canada. AB granted.
Alla Rama Krishna Reddy Vs State of Andhra Pradesh on 23 July 2020
WP(PIL) 174/2019
23 July 2020
High Court dismissed the PIL finding no Public Interest but sufficient Political Interest here and here. Media favourable to YSRCP finds HC favouring TDP here. In case the original article is removed from site, here is a true copy saved from the site. This serves as Secondary evidence as per Evidence Act.
17 December 2019
HC Orders probe here.
6 December 2019
Nara Chandra Babu inaugurates the Party Headquarters here and here.
MLA files PIL here.
N Ramesh Kumar Vs Nilam Sawhney and Ors on 17 July 2020
In a short direction given to SEC Sri N.Ramesh Kumar, High Court said as follows:
In the meantime, petitioner is at liberty to take recourse as specified under Article 243K(3) of the Constitution of India, making a request to Hon’ble the Governor for implementation of the directions of this Court in terms of the Order dated 29-05-2020 in W.P. No. 8163 of 2020.
On this Direction from High Court, N Ramesh Kumar approached Hon’ble the Governor’s office seeking direction to State Government.
Hon’ble Governor’s Office was pleased to do the needful.
Now the Entire Andhra Pradesh State is awaiting when the State Government will do suicide by not following Supreme Court direction which directly assists in invocation of Article 356 of Constitution of India, which will therefore dismiss the State Government and promulgate President’s Rule in the State of Andhra Pradesh. Will this lead only to Suicide of State Government or something/someone else is also to be seen as time rolls on.
The earlier AP High Court Order is here.
CBI Vs Mukesh Pravinchandra Shroff and Ors on 25 November 2005
Here is the one of the shortest decisions from Supreme Court
From Para 2,
2. By the impugned order, the Special Court has discharged the accused Raghunath Lekhraj Wadhwa, Jitendra Ratilal Shroff and Mukesh Pravinchandra Shroff from Special Case No. 4 of 1997. From a bare perusal of the impugned order, it would appear that the Special Court has virtually passed an order of acquittal in the garb of an order of discharge. It is well settled that at the stage of framing of the charge, what is required to be seen is as to whether there are sufficient grounds to proceed against the accused. In our view, the Special Court was not justified in discharging the aforesaid accused persons.
Casemine version:
Supreme Court version (Record of {Proceedings):
Citations: [2009 SCC 16 429], [2010 SCC CRI 3 315]
Other Source links:
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/58117eb32713e179478af2d0#
Arjun Dhondiba Kamble and Ors Vs The State of Maharashtra on 14 February 1992
Bombay High Court held that, “Any demand for presents after the marriage, but not having a connection with the marriage of the parties will not constitute a demand for dowry”
From Para 6,
Dowry in the sense of that expression contemplated by Act 28 of 1961 is a demand for property or valuable security having an inextricable nexus with the marriage. In other words it is a consideration from the side of the bride’s parents or relatives to the groom or his parents and/or guardian for the agreement to wed the bride-to-be. Where the demand for property or valuable security has no connection with the consideration for the marriage, it will not amount to a demand for dowry. In the instant case, the evidence has to be properly understood and thus viewed it is clear that what the appellants wanted was valuable presents to be made to appellant Mahadeo on the occasion of festivals like Deepavali. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that the presents are customarily given to sons-in-law on festive occasions and giving of such presents is in no way connected with the wedding or marriage. It is a post-marriage expectation and the expectation and performance thereof once restricted to the affluents and the middle class, has now spread its tentacles to the poor also. The expectation is because of the relationship, but without any nexus to the agreement to marry. Therefore, it does not amount to dowry. Any demand for presents after the marriage, but not having a connection with the marriage of the parties will not constitute a demand for dowry. This is clear from the qualifying clause of section 2 in Act 28 of 1961 reproduced above.
Citations: [1993 (3) BomCR 473]
Other Source links:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/553393/
