web analytics

Menu

Skip to content
Shades of Knife
  • Home
  • True Colors of a Vile Wife
  • Need Inspiration?
  • Blog Updates
  • SOK Gallery
  • Vile News Reporter
  • About Me
  • Contact Me

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Author: ShadesOfKnife

Rajashekar Vs BCI and Anr on 27 Oct 2025

Posted on July 1 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru held as follows,

From Para 3,

3. On an enquiry with the learned counsel appearing for Bar Council of India, as to whether there is any restriction for such enrolment, she submits that there is no such restriction and any person who has passed out of any Law colleges across the country could be registered with the State Bar council where such person intends to practice in terms of Section 24 of the Advocates Act, 1961. She further submits that it is only if transfer of registration is required to be done, certain procedures would be required to be followed.

From Para 5,

5. In view of the said submission, it being clear that the petitioner has passed out of a college which is affiliated to respondent No.1 and there being no restriction or requirement for the State Bar Council to register only persons who have passed out within that particular State and in view of Section 24 of the Advocates Act, I pass the following:
ORDER
i. Writ petition is allowed.
ii. A mandamus is issued to respondent No.2 to enroll the petitioner as an advocate on its roll as per the Advocates Act, 1961, on the next enrolment date.
iii. Respondent No.2 is directed to, in future, take into consideration any application filed by any student who has passed out in Law in any other State so long as the verification process of the certificate issued is done in a proper manner.

Rajashekar Vs BCI and Anr on 27 Oct 2025

Citations:

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/38447320/

https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/karnataka-high-court/karnataka-high-court-ruling-enrolment-of-law-graduates-from-other-states-309383

https://www.verdictum.in/court-updates/high-courts/karnataka-high-court/sri-rajashekar-v-bar-council-of-india-2025khc42704-advocate-with-law-degree-from-outside-state-can-enroll-1597580

Law Graduates From Any State Can Enroll With Any Bar Council in India: Karnataka High Court


Index of Bar Council Antics is here.

Posted in High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision Advocates Act Section 24 - Persons who may be admitted as advocates on a State roll Bar Council Antics Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Rajashekar Vs BCI and Anr | Leave a comment

Vijay Gopal Vs Bar Council of India and Anr on 29 Apr 2026

Posted on July 1 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of Telangana High Court held as follows,

From Para 4.1,

4.1 The petitioner, appearing in person, contends that Rule 6 of the Rules, 2015 is ex facie illegal, arbitrary, and ultra vires the provisions of the Act, 1961, particularly Sections 22, 30, and 33. It is argued that the statutory scheme unequivocally confers upon an enrolled Advocate the right to practice law, and such right is neither conditional nor subject to compulsory membership in any Bar Association.

From Para 4.4,

4.4. The petitioner further contends that the impugned rule violates the fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 19(1)(c) and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India. It is argued that the freedom to form associations inherently includes the right not to associate, as recognized in Damayanti Naranga v. Union of India (1971) 1 SCC 678. Therefore, any compulsion to join a Bar Association infringes this constitutional guarantee.

From Para 5.2,

5.2. The respondents argue that the impugned rules, including Rule 6.1, are within the statutory framework and are intended to regulate and identify practicing Advocates, as well as to ensure effective implementation of welfare schemes. It is specifically contended that Rule 6 does not mandate compulsory membership in any Bar Association; rather, it provides an option. An Advocate may either become a member of a recognized Bar Association or, alternatively, intimate the State Bar Council regarding non-membership and indicate how he or she proposes to avail welfare benefits.

From Para 5.4,

5.4. The respondents also contend that the requirement of certification and verification is intended solely to identify genuine practitioners and facilitate welfare distribution. There is no violation of Article 19, as the rules neither compel association membership nor restrict the right to practice.

From Para 8,

8. At the outset, Sections 29, 30, and 33 of the Act, 1961 unequivocally recognize Advocates as the only class of persons entitled to practice law, subject to enrolment under the Act. The statutory scheme does not expressly mandate membership in any Bar Association as a condition precedent to the exercise of such right.

From Paras 12 and 13,

12. A plain reading of Rule 6 indicates that membership in a Bar Association is not mandatory. The provision merely affords an option to an Advocate either to join a Bar Association or, in the alternative, to intimate the State Bar Council regarding such non-membership for the purpose of availing welfare benefits. When construed in this manner, the rule can be sustained as a regulatory measure. Notably, the respondents have also urged that the rule be interpreted in this light.

13. In such circumstances, the requirement would fall within the ambit of Sections 6, 7, and 49(1)(ah) of the Act, 1961, as a condition governing the right to practice, aimed at identifying genuine practitioners and facilitating the implementation of welfare schemes.

Finally from Para 17,

17. In view of the foregoing analysis, Rule 6 of the Rules, 2015 is read down to the following extent:
a) Membership in a Bar Association shall be purely voluntary;
b) Non-membership shall not disentitle or restrict an Advocate from practicing law;
c) Bar Associations shall not exercise any determinative or regulatory control over the right to practice.

Call to Action:

18. Accordingly, Respondent No. 1, namely the Bar Council of India, New Delhi, is directed to issue appropriate clarifications to all State Bar Councils. The requirement of certification and verification shall be implemented solely as a regulatory mechanism for availing welfare measures and not as a means of imposing coercive conditions.

Vijay Gopal Vs Bar Council of India and Anr on 29 Apr 2026

Citations: [2026 LiveLaw (Tel) 86]

Other Sources:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/137307844/

https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/telangana-high-court/telangana-high-court-bar-associations-exercise-regulatory-control-advocate-right-to-practice-538287

https://www.verdictum.in/telangana-high-court/vijay-gopal-v-bar-council-of-india-anr-bar-council-of-india-membership-1613590


Index of Bar Council Antics is here.

Posted in High Court of Telangana Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision Bar Council Antics Colourable Exercise of Power by Bar Council Constitutional Validity Doctrine of Colourable Legislation - Exceeding the Power Entrusted with Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes Vijay Gopal Vs Bar Council of India and Anr | Leave a comment

Bhawna Rani Vs Gurdeep Singh on 27 Nov 2025

Posted on June 30 by ShadesOfKnife

A single Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court held as follows,

From Para 15,

15. The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the respondent-husband in the cases of Sheetal Patil (supra), Alipka @ Lokesh (supra) and Kanchan (supra) are that of High Courts of Chhattisgarh, Rajasthan and Bombay, respectively. Since two Division Bench judgments of this Court have categorically held that once an appeal is filed within the period of limitation and after filing thereof contracting of a second marriage by the husband tantamounts to contravention of Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the argument of learned counsel for the respondent-husband deserves to be rejected. Further, as noticed above, their Lordships in the case of N. Rajendran (supra) have also held that the bar on re-marriage under Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 after divorce will apply on mere filing of an appeal.

From Para 16 (the bullshit arises here; no one knows the legal mandate of Audi Alterum Partem)

16. Learned counsel for the respondent-husband has not been able to point out to any case law to the contrary that a marriage contracted in contravention of Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 would not amount to civil contempt. The reliance made by learned counsel for respondent-husband to the judgment in the case of Suresh (supra) would also not come to his aid as the same does not deal with the contravention of Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

From Para 17,

17. As discussed above, not only the appeal was filed within the prescribed period of limitation but the respondent-husband also appears to have evaded the service of notice in the appeal as he remained unserved on the same very address i.e. ‘House No.41, Pooja Vihar, Industrial Area, Ambala Cantt. District Ambala’, wherein he had also been served in FAO-M-5170-2018, which was the same address given by him in the divorce petition filed by him. In his reply the respondent-husband has categorically admitted that after the marriage was dissolved vide a decree of divorce dated 02.03.2020, he contracted a second marriage on 03.01.2021. The only plea taken by the respondent-husband is that he was never served and that he gained knowledge about the pendency of FAO-1935-2020 on 23.02.2021. It has further been stated that there cannot be endless time limit for the spouse not to re-marry and that the respondent-husband re-married only after the grant of decree of divorce and that the appeal pending before this Court has still not been decided. In a nutshell, in his reply the respondent-husband, instead of tendering an unqualified apology, has tried to contest his act of solemnizing the second marriage during the pendency of the above appeal and stay having been granted therein. It is only when this fact was pointed out by this Court to learned counsel for the respondent-husband that an affidavit was filed along with CM-22461-CII-2025 tendering an unqualified apology. However, the apology in the present case cannot be accepted for the reason that there has been willful contravention of Section 15 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Even if the argument of learned counsel for the respondent-husband as regards the fact that respondent-husband was not served in the appeal is to be taken on its face value, he admittedly never made inquiries within the prescribed period of limitation regarding filing of the appeal.

From Para 21, (Why the fish does husband want anything to do with reconciliation, after he won his divorce case on merits against the OP?)

21. The act and conduct of the respondent-husband is such that the clock cannot be put back and the damage which has ensued cannot be rectified. Virtually, the conduct of respondent-husband has rendered the appeal filed by the petitioner-wife infructuous and the petitioner-wife being remediless. The petitioner-wife and her daughter have even missed out the chance to partake in any reconciliation process.

Note: I just wish and pray that this BS gets thrown out of window at Supreme Court.

Bhawna Rani Vs Gurdeep Singh on 27 Nov 2025

Citations:

Other Sources:

 


Index of Contempt of Court decisions is here.

Posted in High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision Bhawna Rani Vs Gurdeep Singh Imprisonment For Contempt Of Court Judiciary Antics Misinterpretation of Earlier Judgment or Settle Principle of Law or Per Incuriam What are Principles of Natural Justice? | Leave a comment

Ravi S Vs Sahana Devi A and Ors on 18 Jun 2026

Posted on June 29 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Karnataka High Court at Bengaluru held as follows:

From Para 7,

7. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 contended that respondent No.1 is the only child to her parents. No doubt she is earning around ₹1,00,000/- per month, but she is under obligation to clear all the debts which she incurred for her marriage. Therefore, Trial Court rightly directed petitioner to pay respondent No.1 a sum of ₹20,000/- towards interim maintenance and thus this writ petition is liable to be dismissed.

From Para 8,

8. …

No material whatsoever is produced by respondent No.1 which gives the details of the loans she obtained and the EMI’s. Even in the affidavit filed disclosing her assets and liabilities she has not mentioned the details of those loans, when she obtained and what amount is still due to be paid. Trial
Court made an observation at para 12 of the impugned order that as per the bank statement and pay slip produced by respondent No.1, it is evident that he is employed with Genpact India Private Limited and is drawing gross monthly salary of ₹60,646/-. The Trial Court did not consider the income of respondent No.1/wife at all. In her affidavit given disclosing assets and liabilities she herself mentioned that she gets ₹1,00,000/- per month as salary. The Trial Court which discussed about the earnings of petitioner/husband ought to have discussed about the earnings of respondent No.1/wife and thereafter should have come to a conclusion with regard to the entitlement for interim maintenance. But, totally ignoring the earnings of respondent No.1/wife, the impugned order came to be passed.

From Para 9, (Slipper shot!) Trial Court judge has no sense of difference between a case of DV and a case of neglect… Thuuu…

9. Only because a woman more particularly a wife files a petition invoking the provisions of Domestic Violence Act or the provisions of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act or the provisions contained in the Code of Criminal Procedure, where the right to claim maintenance is recognized, the Courts cannot straight away pass an order awarding some amount towards maintenance payable by the husband. When the wife is financially sound and in case where the income of the wife is more than that of the husband and where no other liabilities are found on part of the wife, like looking after the children, Courts should not be inclined to pass an order granting maintenance on the ground that women are required to be maintained by men or wife is required to be maintained by her husband. It should be borne in mind that only when it is shown that the wife has no financial sources to maintain herself according to the standards of her husband, then only Courts are required to award maintenance either interim or final.

Ravi S Vs Sahana Devi A and Ors on 18 Jun 2026

Citations:

Other Sources:

https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/karnataka-high-court/wife-income-higher-than-husband-no-maintenance-unless-wife-unable-to-maintain-herself-539208

https://courtbook.in/posts/karnataka-hc-says-wife-earning-more-than-husband-cannot-claim-interim-maintenance-without-financial-need

https://mynation.net/docs/2327-2026

https://lawstreet.co/judiciary/karnataka-hc-maintenance-only-when-wife-cannot-maintain-herself-to-husband039;s-standard

https://thelexpedia.com/judgements/sri-ravi-s-at-jeevan-s-v-smt-sahana-devi-a-others-2026


Index of Maintenance under Judgments under PWDV Act is here.

Posted in High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 1-Judge Bench Decision PWDV Act Sec 23 - Interim Maintenance Denied Ravi S Vs Sahana Devi A and Ors | Leave a comment

Is Bigamy (under sections 494, 495 IPC and now Section 82 BNS) a Cognizable and non-bailable offence, as much as it applies to State of Andhra Pradesh?

Posted on June 27 by ShadesOfKnife

While I am fighting ‘legally’ to get a FIR registered against the OP for her crimes of Bigamy here, I decided to pick up on one of my legal goals. If State of AP made sections 494, 495 IPC cognizable and non-bailable offences through a State Amendment here, it sure must now evaluate the Section 82 BNS and decide if a State Amendment is again required. Begin with the standard steps.


Sent representations to Home and Law Departments on 11-Jun-2026 which were delivered on 15-Jun-2026.

2026-06-10 Representation 1 to Home - Regd State Amendment to New Criminal Laws

On 17-Jun-2026, the representation sent to Home Department was forwarded to DGP Office, Mangalagiri for his ‘remarks’ about the issues raised in my representation.


Index to my Life Goals is here.

Posted in Judicial Activism (for Public Benefit) | Tagged IPC 494 - Marrying again during life-time of husband or wife IPC 495 - Same offence with concealment of former marriage from person with whom subsequent marriage is contracted Is Bigamy (under sections 494 and 495 IPC and now Section 82 BNS) a Cognizable and non-bailable offence as much as it applies to State of Andhra Pradesh? | Leave a comment

Advocates Act 1961 Section 18 – Transfer of name from one State roll to another

Posted on June 27 by ShadesOfKnife

18. Transfer of name from one State roll to another.―

(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 17, any person whose name is entered as an advocate on the roll of any State Bar Council may make an application in the prescribed form to the Bar Council of India for the transfer of his name from the roll of that State Bar Council to the roll of any other State Bar Council and, on receipt of any such application the Bar Council of India shall direct that the name of such person shall, without the payment of any fee, be removed from the roll of the first mentioned State Bar Council and entered in the roll of the other State Bar Council and the State Bar Councils concerned shall comply with such direction:
Provided that where any such application for transfer is made by a person against whom any disciplinary proceeding is pending or where for any other reason it appears to the Bar Council of India that the application for transfer has not been made bona fide and that the transfer should not be made, the Bar Council of India may, after giving the person making the application an opportunity of making a representation in this behalf, reject the application.
(2) For the removal of doubts it is hereby declared that where on an application made by an advocate under sub-section (1), his name is transferred from the roll of one State Bar Council to that of another, he shall retain the same seniority in the latter roll to which he was entitled in the former roll.

Posted in Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments | Tagged Advocates Act 1961 Section 18 - Transfer of name from one State roll to another | Leave a comment

Are BCI and State Bar Councils Statutorily empowered to Levy Fees for Transfer of Enrollment?

Posted on June 27 by ShadesOfKnife

After this case here, now again, I am conflicting with Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh (BC-AP) and Bar Council of India (BCI) regarding their charging of illegal Fees for Transfer of Enrollment from one State Bar to another. This violates the Section 18 – Transfer of name from one State roll to another of Advocates Act 1961.

In total both Bar Council usurped a total of Rs.7750/- from me to do a task for which the Parliament set a fee. Zero.

1. Fees charged by Bar Council of AP to provide me the NOC : Rs.2000/- (Bankers Check. No. 631280 in the name of Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh)
2. Fees charged by Bar Council of India to provide me the Transfer Order : Rs.5000/- (D.D. No. 631341 in the name of Secretary, Bar Council of India)
3. Fees charged by Bar Council of AP to issue an endorsement for me (in Original): Rs.750/- (D.D. No. 415310 in the name of Secretary, Bar Council of Andhra Pradesh)

It is frustrating to note that the people who run these statutory bodies, despite being fully aware what they are doing is illegal. No excuse or mercy to be shown to such unscrupulous people.


On 24-Jun-2026, I sent the secretaries of both Bar Councils an email demanding my fees to be returned. Of course, I am not in any delusion that they will comply with my demand. These lot are think skinned. This is just prerequisite before filing a Writ Petition.

2026-06-24 Return of fees illegally charged by AP Bar Council and Bar Council of India

Subsequently On 24-Jun-2026, I sent a representations to both Bars through Speed Post which were delivered on 29-Jun-2026. Now to wait for response, if any. Meanwhile the WP earlier prepared needs to be updated.


  • 08-July-2026
    • Relocated to Bengaluru, this time to become as an Advocate, for many reasons. Can be closer to aged parents (Bengaluru is around 200 Kms away from Anantapur), High Court and 5-6 Trial Court Complexes in Bengaluru are just around 4-5 Kms away from each other, Higher Income prospect, Cooler climate, Telugu is known to almost everyone in Bengaluru, Suprajaa being already enrolled since 4 years here.
    • Settled in the Tilaknagar, Jayanagar PG.
  • 09-July-2026
    • Visited Karnataka State Bar Council (KSBC) only to realize even these bastards are charging fees to process enrollment transfers. Time to screw them legally. It seems I am going to have a grand welcome in Karnataka.
    • Gathered sample WPs and decided to send the representation first, as required by a High Court.
    • Decided to do a dual-litigation with both State Bar Councils of AP and Karnataka as well as the Bar Council of India.
  • 11-July-2026
    • Sent the representation from Anantapur vide Consignment Number: EN537735595IN. It reached KSBC on 14-Jul-2026.
    • 2026-07-11 Representation to KSBC
    • Now to investigate if the fees came down to statutory Rs.750/- from Rs.7500/- or not. If no change, will file WP by upcoming Independence Day.
  • 23-July-2026
    • Through a friend, realized that KSBC has not moved away from the illegal fees of Rs.7500/- and that the split of the fees is Rs.2000/- goes to the bigboss at New Delhi, BCI, Rs.2000/- goes to this State Bar Council and the balance of Rs.3500/- is towards fees/premium of mandatory/forced Welfare scheme/scam. So, they will only listen to that language they understand well. I also met a clerk today at High Court who informed me that I need to wait only for 15 days before filing the WP, so 29-Jul-2026 is a good date to file the WP.
  • 13-August-2026
    • After few give-and-takes, the Writ Petition is filed before Karnataka High Court and awaiting scrutiny. WP(SR): 25940/2026. Thanks to my new clerk at Karnataka High Court, Mr. Hemant.
    • Petition copy:
      2026-08-15 WP against Enrolment Transfer fees by KSBC v0.1
    • Yet to re-file before AP High Court.
    • Petition copy:
      2026-08-17 Writ Petition seeking FIR for 494, 495 IPC Offences v0.1
  • 14-August-2026
    • Objections. Every single one of them was cosmetic and trivial.
    • After few nudges, the Writ Petition is re-filed before Karnataka High Court and was numbered. WP: 25961/2026. I was informed by my new clerk at Karnataka High Court, Mr. Hemant that this case will be listed on Thursday 03-Sep-2026. Phewwww!
  • 03-September-2026
    • Due to technical defect, my Counsel was not admitted into the VC so Judge proceeded to permit notice to Respondents and directed the case be listed after 2 weeks on 17-Sep-2026

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • 17-September-2026
    • Fully prepared with remedies and backups for hearing on 17-Sep-2026

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Index of Bar Council Antics here.


Index to my Life Goals is here.

Posted in Judicial Activism (for Public Benefit) | Tagged Advocates Act Sec 18 - Transfer of name from one State roll to another Are BCI and State Bar Councils Statutorily empowered to Levy Fees for Transfer of Enrollment? | Leave a comment

RS Tamilvendan Vs The Secretary and Ors on 21 May 2026

Posted on June 25 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Madras High Court held as follows,

From Para 5,

5. None can deny there is corruption in the Judiciary. There were and are corrupt Judges. While addressing a legal conference in Kollam, Kerala, former CJI Bharucha implied that 20 per cent of the Judges in this country were corrupt. The startling statement made by the Bhushans (father and son duo) is still in public memory. We would not go that far. We refuse to even endorse such sweeping statements. But, we do know and have come across instances of judicial corruption. The Full Court of the Madras High Court regularly shows the exit door to such black sheep. The Supreme Court acknowledged in High Court of Judicature at Bombay -vs- V.Shirish Kumar Rangrao Patil (1997) 6 SCC 339 that the cancerous cells of corruption constantly keep creeping into the vital veins of the judiciary. It was also observed that the need to stem it out by judicial surgery lies on the judiciary itself by its self imposed or corrective measures or disciplinary action under Article 235 of the Constitution. Corruption in Judiciary cannot be committed without some members of the Bar becoming privy to the corrupt. The vigilant watch by the High Court is the sustaining stream to catch the corrupt and to deal with the situation appropriately.

From Para 15,

15. Judges need not be treated as holy cows. Justice is not a cloistered virtue; she must be allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respectful even though outspoken comments of ordinary men (Lord Atkin). But the lack of respect in the movie dialogues would not make any difference to us. In Sheela Barse -vs- Union of India (1988) 4 SCC 226, it was observed that criticism of judicial functioning is a healthy aid for introspection and improvement and that it is the privileged right of the Indian citizens to believe what he considers to be true and to speak out his mind, though not, perhaps, with the best of tastes; and speak perhaps, with greater courage than care for exactitude. Judiciary is not exempt from criticism. Judicial institutions are, and should be made of stronger stuff. Debates of public issues should be uninhibited, robust and wide open. It may well include vehement, sarcastic and sometimes unpleasant sharp criticism of Government and public officials (D.C.Saxena -vs- Hon’ble Chief Justice of India, 1996 (5) SCC 216). We would add by including Courts and Judges also. Judges are not above criticism. In Foundation Inc -vs- ANI Media (P) Ltd (2025) 10 SCC 353, it was suggested that Courts should welcome debates and constructive criticism.

RS Tamilvendan Vs The Secretary and Ors on 21 May 2026
Posted in High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision RS Tamilvendan Vs The Secretary and Ors | Leave a comment

Vijay R. Nair Vs Lijitha on 12 Jun 2026

Posted on June 24 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Kerala High Court held that since the wife contracted a second marriage, the issue of permanent alimony requires fresh adjudication. Phew… 20 Lakhs is a big amount. Hopefully saved.

From Para 11,

11. On the issue of award of permanent alimony of Rs.20,00,000/- to be respondent, we find, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant, that the finding of the court below was rendered in the absence of any evidence adduced on behalf of the appellant. While under normal circumstance, this Court would have been loathe to accept the request of the appellant for a remand of this issue to the court below for fresh adjudication, we find that, in the light of the changed circumstances where the respondent has contracted a second marriage during the pendency of this appeal, the issue of entitlement of the respondent to permanent alimony and the quantification thereof, would have to be necessarily gone into by the court below as and when an application under Section 25(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act is preferred before it by the appellant. That being the case, we deem it appropriate to set aside the judgment and decree of the court below, to the extent it awards permanent alimony of Rs.20,00,000/- to the respondent, and remit the matter to the court below for a fresh adjudication on the said issue after affording the parties an opportunity to lead evidence before it. While doing so, we would also request the Court below to complete the fresh adjudication on this issue within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment.

Vijay R. Nair Vs Lijitha on 12 Jun 2026

Citations:

Other Sources:

 


Index of Divorce Judgements is here.

Posted in High Court of Kerala Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision HM Act 25 - Permanent Alimony Denied HM Act Sec 13 - Divorce Granted to Wife HM Act Sec 15 - Divorced Persons When May Marry Again Vijay R. Nair Vs Lijitha | Leave a comment

Pavul Yesu Dhasan Vs Registrar SHRC of TN and Ors on 30 Apr 2025

Posted on June 18 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Supreme Court held that there was a violation of human rights on the part of the Police Inspector, who failed to register FIR and abused the mother of the complainant.

From Para 6,

6. The facts of this case, to say the least, are shocking. The third respondent visited the Police Station for lodging a complaint along with his parents. The complaint was handed over to a Sub-Inspector of Police who stated that since the transaction has taken place at three different places, he cannot accept the same and he could receive the same only after the Inspector of Police looks at it. He stated that the Inspector was not likely to come to the Police Station on that day. Therefore, he gave a cell phone number of the Inspector to the respondent. The third respondent’s mother on the same day tried to contact the present appellant who was the Inspector of Police. After talking to the third respondent’s mother, the appellant cut off the phone call. Therefore, as per the instructions received, the third respondent with his parents again visited the Police Station at 5.00 p.m. They were asked to wait till arrival of the appellant who was the Inspector of Police. Ultimately, he arrived at 8.30 p.m. Very objectionable language was used by the appellant while talking to the third respondent’s mother which is noted in paragraph (4) of the impugned judgment of the State Human Rights Commission.
7. All that the third respondent wanted is registration of FIR based on his complaint. Though law is well settled, the Sub-Inspector did not register the crime. The appellant being a senior officer ought to have immediately registered the FIR. However, not only he refused to do it but used very objectionable language, while talking to the third respondent’s mother.

Pavul Yesu Dhasan Vs Registrar SHRC of TN and Ors on 30 Apr 2025

Citations:

Other Sources:

 


The impugned Order of the Madras High Court is here.

Pavul Yesu Dhasan Vs Registrar SHRC of TN and Ors on 17 Aug 2022

 

Posted in Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification | Tagged 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision Pavul Yesu Dhasan Vs Registrar SHRC of TN and Ors Police Antics | Leave a comment

Post navigation

  • Older posts
  • Newer posts

Search within entire Content of “Shades of Knife”

My Legal X Timeline

Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Follow

AP High Court Advocate with M Tech (CS) || 12 years in 'Software Industry' as Solution Architect || Blogs at https://t.co/29CB9BzK4w || #TDPTwitter

SandeepPamarati
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
jyotikarma7

JyotiKarma🚩🇮🇳

Verified account @jyotikarma7 ·
6 Sep

Hanuman Ansh savior; 21 year old Anupriya

A billion $ industry didn't want to spend a penny on movie like Hanuman Ansh but this 21 year old spent all her savings

Hindus must teach this ungrateful Bollywood a tough lesson, reject their haramkhor films

Accept only Hindutva

Reply on Twitter 2096609819629347197 Retweet on Twitter 2096609819629347197 854 Like on Twitter 2096609819629347197 4119 X 2096609819629347197
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
awanishsharan

Awanish Sharan 🇮🇳

Verified account @awanishsharan ·
7 Sep

Roger Federer's wife introducing him to the international hall of fame.

Amazing! Speechless!

Emotional speech but that summarises how a successful and busy man should be.

Only parents or spouse or children can do this with such a simplicity yet grace, easy but dignified

Reply on Twitter 2096806434394808485 Retweet on Twitter 2096806434394808485 366 Like on Twitter 2096806434394808485 1568 X 2096806434394808485
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
rainmaker1973

Massimo

Verified account @rainmaker1973 ·
7 Sep

In 2001, the Taliban demolished Bamiyan’s 1,500 year old Buddhas despite global outcry.

Reply on Twitter 2096833339948962022 Retweet on Twitter 2096833339948962022 299 Like on Twitter 2096833339948962022 970 X 2096833339948962022
Retweet on Twitter Advocate Sandeep Pamarati 🇮🇳💪👨🏻‍🎓 Retweeted
lovish_pandey06

Lovish 🇮🇳

@lovish_pandey06 ·
7 Sep

Pakistani journalist expose the involvement of pakistani army and LeT group in Pahalgam terror attack killing 26 civillian.

"The terrorist involves in Pahalgam attack were serving in pakistani army with some pak nationalist, who got support from pakistani military regime.

Reply on Twitter 2096990039083499943 Retweet on Twitter 2096990039083499943 10 Like on Twitter 2096990039083499943 21 X 2096990039083499943

Recent Posts

  • K Bharathi Devi and Anr Vs State of Telangana and Anr on 03 Oct 2024 September 6, 2026
  • Jyotirmoy Biswas Vs State of West Bengal and Anr on 5 May 2026 August 29, 2026
  • Vishnu Kumar Shukla and Anr Vs State of UP and Anr on 28 Nov 2023 August 28, 2026
  • Sharif Ahmed and Anr Vs State of UP and Anr on 01 May 2024 August 23, 2026
  • Antics of Advocates in India August 14, 2026

Most Read Posts

  • Charge Sheet and Final Report Explained (3,437 views)
  • Regular Bail Application Format (Section 437/439 CrPC) (2,754 views)
  • Discharge Application Format in 498A Case – Draft, Procedure & Sample Template (2,363 views)
  • Can You Travel Abroad After an FIR Is Registered? – Legal Position Explained (2,336 views)
  • Appeal, Revision and Review Explained (1,962 views)
  • Anju Garg and Anr Vs Deepak Kumar Garg on 28 Sep 2022 - Judgement Summary (1,597 views)
  • How Courts Quash Omnibus Allegations in Matrimonial FIRs - Case Study (1,471 views)
  • Framing of Charges Explained (1,417 views)
  • Life Cycle Stages of a Defamation Case (1,288 views)
  • Sandeep Pathak and Ors Vs Lalitha Tiwari on 10 Mar 2026 - Judgment Summary (1,118 views)

Tags

Reportable Judgement or Order (443)2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision (428)Legal Procedure Explained - Interpretation of Statutes (389)Landmark Case (384)1-Judge Bench Decision (371)Catena of Landmark Judgments Referred/Cited to (301)Work-In-Progress Article (215)3-Judge (Full) Bench Decision (101)Sandeep Pamarati (91)Article 21 - Protection of life and personal liberty (80)Issued or Recommended Guidelines or Directions or Protocols to be followed (71)Perjury Under Section 340 CrPC (70)Absurd Or After Thought Or Baseless Or False Or General Or Inherently Improbable Or Improved Or UnSpecific Or Omnibus Or Vague Allegations (62)Reprimands or Setbacks to YCP Govt of Andhra Pradesh (49)Summary Post (47)CrPC 482 - Quash (44)CrPC 125 or BNSS 144 - Order for Maintenance of Wives Children and Parents (43)HM Act Sec 13 - Divorce Granted to Husband (42)Abuse Or Misuse of Process of Court (42)Divorce Granted on Cruelty ground (42)

Categories

Supreme Court of India Judgment or Order or Notification (763)Bare Acts or State Amendments or Statutes or GOs or Notifications issued by Central or State Governments (329)High Court of Andhra Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (187)High Court of Delhi Judgment or Order or Notification (167)High Court of Bombay Judgment or Order or Notification (112)High Court of Karnataka Judgment or Order or Notification (95)Legal Procedure (84)High Court of Madras Judgment or Order or Notification (71)High Court of Allahabad Judgment or Order or Notification (63)LLB Study Material (59)General Study Material (56)High Court of Punjab & Haryana Judgment or Order or Notification (53)Assorted Court Judgments or Orders or Notifications (53)High Court of Kerala Judgment or Order or Notification (47)Judicial Activism (for Public Benefit) (47)Prakasam DV Cases (46)District or Sessions or Magistrate Court Judgment or Order or Notification (44)High Court of Madhya Pradesh Judgment or Order or Notification (38)High Court of Calcutta Judgment or Order or Notification (28)High Court of Telangana Judgment or Order or Notification (28)

Recent Comments

  • pradeep jain on How to Challenge Ex Parte Orders in Criminal and Matrimonial Proceedings – Legal Remedies
  • Lawyer Sonia on Regular Bail Application Format (Section 437/439 CrPC)
  • vinod gupta on Reply to Section 41A CrPC Notice – Format with Legal Explanation
  • eCourts India on Compromise-Based Quashing in Matrimonial Cases – Complete Legal Strategy
  • The Divorce Law Firm on Life Cycle Stages of a Divorce case

Archives of SoK

  • September 2026 (1)
  • August 2026 (6)
  • July 2026 (19)
  • June 2026 (19)
  • May 2026 (24)
  • April 2026 (33)
  • March 2026 (42)
  • February 2026 (30)
  • January 2026 (21)
  • December 2025 (2)
  • November 2025 (3)
  • October 2025 (17)
  • September 2025 (12)
  • August 2025 (5)
  • July 2025 (10)
  • June 2025 (15)
  • May 2025 (3)
  • April 2025 (10)
  • March 2025 (7)
  • February 2025 (8)
  • January 2025 (1)
  • December 2024 (3)
  • November 2024 (4)
  • October 2024 (16)
  • September 2024 (15)
  • August 2024 (14)
  • July 2024 (11)
  • June 2024 (18)
  • May 2024 (13)
  • April 2024 (9)
  • March 2024 (23)
  • February 2024 (15)
  • January 2024 (11)
  • December 2023 (11)
  • November 2023 (9)
  • October 2023 (13)
  • September 2023 (12)
  • August 2023 (15)
  • July 2023 (17)
  • June 2023 (11)
  • May 2023 (6)
  • April 2023 (5)
  • March 2023 (10)
  • February 2023 (9)
  • January 2023 (12)
  • December 2022 (12)
  • November 2022 (8)
  • October 2022 (13)
  • September 2022 (17)
  • August 2022 (10)
  • July 2022 (21)
  • June 2022 (27)
  • May 2022 (23)
  • April 2022 (32)
  • March 2022 (17)
  • February 2022 (6)
  • January 2022 (2)
  • December 2021 (7)
  • November 2021 (7)
  • October 2021 (6)
  • September 2021 (10)
  • August 2021 (31)
  • July 2021 (45)
  • June 2021 (17)
  • May 2021 (17)
  • April 2021 (18)
  • March 2021 (58)
  • February 2021 (14)
  • January 2021 (50)
  • December 2020 (35)
  • November 2020 (68)
  • October 2020 (67)
  • September 2020 (28)
  • August 2020 (41)
  • July 2020 (20)
  • June 2020 (36)
  • May 2020 (40)
  • April 2020 (38)
  • March 2020 (26)
  • February 2020 (43)
  • January 2020 (35)
  • December 2019 (34)
  • November 2019 (4)
  • October 2019 (18)
  • September 2019 (57)
  • August 2019 (33)
  • July 2019 (12)
  • June 2019 (18)
  • May 2019 (5)
  • April 2019 (19)
  • March 2019 (58)
  • February 2019 (11)
  • January 2019 (90)
  • December 2018 (97)
  • November 2018 (43)
  • October 2018 (31)
  • September 2018 (73)
  • August 2018 (47)
  • July 2018 (143)
  • June 2018 (92)
  • May 2018 (97)
  • April 2018 (59)
  • March 2018 (8)

Blogroll

  • Daaman Promoting Harmony 0
  • Fight against Legal Terrorism Fight against Legal Terrorism along with MyNation Foundation 0
  • Good Morning Good Morning News 0
  • Insaaf India Insaaf Awareness Movement 0
  • MyNation Hope Foundation Wiki 0
  • MyNation.net Equality, Justice and Harmony 0
  • Sarvepalli Legal 0
  • Save Indian Family Save Indian Family Movement 0
  • SIF Chandigarh SIF Chandigarh 0
  • The Male Factor The Male Factor 0
  • Unitedmen Foundation a dedicated community forged with the mission to unite men facing legal challenges in marital disputes. 0
  • Vaastav Foundation The Social Reality 0
  • Vinayak my2centsworth – This blog is for honest law abiding men, married or planning to get married 0
  • Voice4india Indian Laws, Non-profits, Environment 0
  • Writing Law Writing Law by Ankur 0

RSS feed: Cloudflare Status Cloudflare Status

  • ATL (Atlanta) on 2026-09-14 September 14, 2026
    Sep 7, 22:30 UTCScheduled - We will be performing scheduled maintenance in ATL (Atlanta) datacenter on 2026-09-14 between 07:00 and 22:00 UTC. Traffic might be re-routed from this location, hence there is a possibility of a slight increase in latency during this maintenance window for end-users in the affected region. For PNI / CNI customers […]
    Cloudflare Status

RSS feed: List of Spam Server IPs from Project Honeypot List of Spam Server IPs from Project Honeypot

  • 35.198.207.104 | SD September 8, 2026
    Event: Bad Event | Total: 8 | First: 2026-09-08 | Last: 2026-09-08
Owned and Operated by Advocate Sandeep Pamarati and Advocate Suprajaa Rajan
Proudly powered by WordPress
Theme: Flint by Star Verte LLC

Bad Behavior has blocked 275 access attempts in the last 7 days.

pixel