Here is the G.O. for Altering the name of Ananthapur District as “Ananthapuramu District“
Author: ShadesOfKnife
Supreme Court: PF and employee share-plan deductions cannot shrink the income used to assess child maintenance
Harpreet Sawhney v Puneet Sharma | Supreme Court of India | Sanjay Karol and N. Kotiswar Singh, JJ. | 10 August 2026 | 2026 INSC 822
The Delhi High Court had fixed maintenance for the couple’s two children at Rs 1,25,000 a month. The mother appealed, pointing to the children’s expenses and the father’s salary deductions. The Supreme Court held that the amount needed reconsideration.
The Court distinguished tax deductions from provident-fund and employee stock purchase plan (ESPP) contributions. PF and ESPP amounts accrue for the employee’s future benefit; they cannot simply be treated as money permanently lost when assessing his means to pay maintenance.
The Court raised child maintenance to Rs 1,50,000 a month in total (Rs 75,000 per child), effective 1 January 2025. It also raised the mother’s interim maintenance from Rs 20,000 to Rs 30,000 a month, noting her cancer-treatment expenses while she cares for the children. This is not a fixed formula for every case: the order turns on this family’s income and expenses, and leaves room to seek another increase if circumstances change.
Pradeep Ram Vs State of Jharkhand and Anr on 1 Jul 2019
A division of Supreme Court held as follows,
From Paras 7 and 9, (Question of law formulated due to divergent views on the point)
7. From the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and the pleadings on the record, following are the issues, which arise for consideration in these appeals:-
(i) Whether in a case where an accused has been bailed out in a criminal case, in which case, subsequently new offences are added, is it necessary that bail earlier granted should be cancelled for taking the accused in custody?
(ii) Whether re-registration of F.I.R. No.RC-06/2018/NIA/DLI is a second F.I.R. and is not permissible there being already a FIR No. 02/2016 registered at P.S. Tandwa arising out of same incident?
(iii) Whether N.I.A. could conduct any further investigation in the matter when investigation in the P.S. Case No.02/2016 having already been completed and charge sheet has been submitted on 10.03.2016 with regard to which cognizance has already been taken by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Chatra on 11.03.2016?
(iv) Whether the order dated 25.06.2018 passed by Judicial Commissioner-cum-Special Judge, NIA, Ranchi remanding the appellant to judicial custody is in accordance with law?
(v) Whether the power under Section 167 Cr.P.C. can be exercised in the present case, where the cognizance has already been taken by Chief Judicial Magistrate on 11.03.2016 or the accused could have been remanded only under Section 309(2) Cr.P.C.?9. The question, as to whether when an accused is bailed out in a criminal case, in which new offences have been added, whether for arresting the accused, it is necessary to get the bail cancelled, has arisen time and again, there are divergent views of different High Courts on the above question. On one side, the High Courts have taken the view that for arresting the accused, who is already on bail, in event of addition of new offences, the earlier bail need to be cancelled whereas the other line of opinion is that for new offences accused has to obtain a fresh bail order and the earlier bail order shall not enure to the benefit of the accused.
From Para 18,
18. Whether after addition of new non-bailable offence, police authority can straightaway arrest the accused, who is already granted bail by the Court, in reference to offences prior to addition of new offences or the police is to necessarily obtain an order from the Court either of cancellation of the bail or permission to arrest the accused in changed circumstances are questions where different views have been expressed by different High Courts. In the present case, the appellant was not arrested by the police after addition of offences under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act, 1967, rather the police authorities had made an application before the Court for issue of production warrant since the accused was already in custody in jail in reference to another case.
From Para 29, Issue No.1 answered.
29. In view of the foregoing discussions, we arrive at following conclusions in respect of a circumstance where after grant of bail to an accused, further
cognizable and non-bailable offences are added:-
(i) The accused can surrender and apply for bail for newly added cognizable and non-bailable offences. In event of refusal of bail, the accused can certainly be arrested.
(ii) The investigating agency can seek order from the court under Section 437(5) or 439(2) of Cr.P.C. for arrest of the accused and his custody.
(iii) The Court, in exercise of power under Section 437(5) or 439(2) of Cr.P.C., can direct for taking into custody the accused who has already been granted bail after cancellation of his bail. The Court in exercise of power under Section 437(5) as well as Section 439(2) can direct the person
who has already been granted bail to be arrested and commit him to custody on addition of graver and non-cognizable offences which may not be necessary always with order of cancelling of earlier bail.
(iv) In a case where an accused has already been granted bail, the investigating authority on addition of an offence or offences may not proceed to arrest the accused, but for arresting the accused on such addition of offence or offences it need to obtain an order to arrest the accused from the Court which had granted the bail.
Citations: [2019 INSC 706], [AIR 2019 SUPREME COURT 3193], [2019 (3) AJR 689], [AIRONLINE 2019 SC 397], [2019 CRI LJ 3801], [(2019) 2 ALD(CRL) 453], [(2019) 2 GUJ LH 617], [(2019) 3 ALLCRILR 540], [(2019) 3 ALLCRIR 2574], [(2019) 3 CRILR(RAJ) 807], [(2019) 3 PAT LJR 265], [(2019) 3 RECCRIR 538], [2019 (4) KCCR SN 252 (SC)], [(2019) 4 MH LJ (CRI) 397], [(2019) 75 OCR 321], [(2019) 9 SCALE 120], [2019 CRILR(SC MAH GUJ) 807], [(2020) 110 ALLCRIC 654], [(2020) 206 ALLINDCAS 219], [2020 CALCRILR 1 233], [AIR 2019 SC( CRI) 1138]
Other Sources:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/129162686/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5d39d2253321bc0f0457d8a1
https://www.legaldeskai.in/case-law/in/sc/judgment/pradeep-ram-versus-the-state-of-jharkhand-anr-2019-8-824-868
https://vlex.in/vid/crl-no-000816-000817-852332646
Index of Anticipatory Bail Judgements is here.
Video Conferencing Links of District Judiciary of Andhra Pradesh
The following are the Video Conferencing Links of District Judiciary of Andhra Pradesh. They are liable to change as the High Court of Andhra Pradesh decided.
- Anantapur: https://anantapur.dcourts.gov.in/7886-2/
- Chittoor:
- East Godavari: https://eastgodavari.dcourts.gov.in/vc-meeting-links/
- Guntur: https://guntur.dcourts.gov.in/vc-meeting-links/
- Kadapa: https://kadapa.dcourts.gov.in/vc-meeting-links/
- Krishna: https://krishna.dcourts.gov.in/vc-meeting-links-2/
- Kurnool: https://kurnool.dcourts.gov.in/kurnool-district-judiciary-all-courts-video-conference-links/
- SPSR Nellore: https://spsrnellore.dcourts.gov.in/v-c-meeting-links/
- Prakasam: https://prakasam.dcourts.gov.in/8808-2/
- Srikakulam: https://srikakulam.dcourts.gov.in/video-conferencing-links-of-court-establishments-relating-to-srikakulamdistrict-regarding/
- Visakhapatnam: https://visakhapatnam.dcourts.gov.in/video-conference-microsoft-teams-meeting-ids-and-pass-codes-along-with-links-of-visakhapatnam-district-judiciary-reg/
- Vizianagaram: https://vizianagaram.dcourts.gov.in/video-conference-microsoft-teams-meeting-links-of-vizianagaram-unit/
- West Godavari: https://westgodavari.dcourts.gov.in/vc-meeting-links/
Practical Solutions Inc Vs State of Telangana and Ors on 19 Jan 2026
A division bench of Apex Court has held as follows,
From Para 12,
12. We also take notice of the fact that infact the petition before the High Court was to quash the FIR. In a petition where quashing of the FIR is prayed for, the High Court should not have passed an order directing the Investigating Officer to comply with Section 41-A of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, “the Cr.PC) because it indirectly amounts to granting a relief which High Court could have considered only if a prima facie case for quashing of the FIR is made out.
Citations:
Other Sources:
Index of Quash judgments is here.
Md. Mashood and Ors Vs State of UP and Ors on 25 Feb 2026
A division bench of Apex Court has held as follows,
From Para 8,
8. In view of the above settled legal position, wherein this Court has held that once a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and/or Section 482 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, and/or Section 528 of Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 is preferred, the same should be decided on merits, rather than dismissing the same as infructuous or by directing the Police to follow Arnesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar (supra).
Citations:
Other Sources:
Index of Quash judgments is here.
Nalla Balu @ Durgam Shashidhar Goud Vs State of Telangana and Anr on 10 Sep 2025
A single judge of Telangana High Court issued following guidelines,
i. Verification of locus standi: Before registering any FIR for alleged defamation or similar offences, the police must verify whether the complainant qualifies as the “person aggrieved” in terms of law. Complaints by unrelated third parties lacking standing are not maintainable, except where the report concerns a cognizable offence.
ii. Preliminary inquiry in cognizable offences: Where a representation/complaint discloses a cognizable offence, the police shall, prior to registration of crime, conduct a preliminary inquiry to ascertain whether the statutory ingredients of the alleged offence are, prima facie, made out.iii. High threshold for media post/speech-related offences: No case alleging promotion of enmity, intentional insult, public mischief, threat to public order, or sedition shall be registered unless there exists prima facie material disclosing incitement to violence, hatred, or public disorder. This threshold must be applied in line with the principles laid down in Kedar Nath Singh v. State of Bihar, 1962 Supp (2) SCR 769, and Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, (2015) 5 SCC 1.
iv. Protection of political speech/post: The police shall not mechanically register cases concerning harsh, offensive, or critical political speech. Only when the speech amounts to incitement to violence or poses an imminent threat to public order may criminal law be invoked. Constitutional protections for free political criticism under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution must be scrupulously enforced.
v. Defamation as a non-cognizable offence: Since defamation is classified as a non-cognizable offence, the police cannot directly register an FIR or crime in such matters. The complainant must be directed to approach the jurisdictional Magistrate. Police action may follow only upon a specific order of the Magistrate under Section 174(2) of the BNSS.
24 NTR,J CRLPs_4905, 4903 & 8416_2025 vi. Compliance with arrest guidelines: In all cases, the police shall strictly comply with the principles laid down in Arnesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2014) 8 SCC 273. Automatic or mechanical arrests are impermissible, and the principle of proportionality in the exercise of criminal process must be observed. vii. Prior legal scrutiny in sensitive cases: In matters involving political speech/post or other sensitive forms of expression, the police shall obtain prior legal opinion from the Public Prosecutor before registering an FIR, to ensure that the proposed action is legally sustainable.
viii. Frivolous or motivated complaints: Where a complaint is found to be frivolous, vexatious, or politically motivated, the police shall close the matter under Section 176(1) of the BNSS, citing absence of sufficient grounds for investigation.
Citations:
Other Sources:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/25907023/
Supreme Court decision:
Sources:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/175822160/
Index
Chajoo Ram Vs Radhey Shyam and Anr on 23 Mar 1971
A full court bench of the Apex Court held as follows, with respect to When should a Prosecution for perjury be ordered .
The prosecution for perjury should be sanctioned by courts, only in those cases where the perjury appears to be deliberate and conscious and the conviction is reasonably probable or likely. No doubt giving of false evidence and filing false affidavit is an evil which must be effectively curbed with a strong hand but to start prosecution for perjury too readily and too frequently with,out due care and caution and on inconclusive and doubtful material defeats its very purpose. Prosecution should be ordered when it is considered expedient in the interests of justice to punish the delinquent and not merely because there is some inaccuracy in the statement which may be innocent or immaterial. There must be prima facie case of deliberate falsehood on a matter ,of substance and the court should be satisfied that there is reasonable foundation for the charge.
Citations: [1971] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 172], [1971 INSC 89], [1971 SCC (1) 774], [1971 AIR 1367], [(1971) 03 SC CK 0045], [(1971) 2 ALT 277], [(1971) CriLJ 1096], [(1971) SCC(Cri) 331]
Other Sources:
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/187090/
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609ab75e4b014971140c8b3
https://www.courtkutchehry.com/judgements/646903/chajoo-ram-appellant-hash-radhey-shyam-and-another-respondent/
https://www.legalstreet.in/ratio/case/1971-insc-89/
https://www.legitquest.com/case/chajoo-ram-v-radhey-shyam-anr/3C67
Index of Perjury Judgments is here.
Nanduri Mahesh Babu Vs UOI and Ors on 17 Feb 2025
A single judge of AP High Court held as follows,
From Paras 14 and 15,
14. In the light of the settled legal position, this Court is inclined to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to Respondent No.3 to consider the application of the petitioner, and issue fresh passport for a period of three (03) years, in accordance with law, without raising any objection relating to the criminal case Crime No.133 of 2020 on the file of Ghantasala Police Station and registered as C.C.No.398 of 2020 pending on the file of Judicial First Class Magistrate Court, Movva, within two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.
15. Further, if the petitioner intends to travel abroad, he shall obtain prior permission (NOC) from the Court concerned for such travel and shall appear before the trial Court, whenever his presence is required by the Court.
Citations:
Other Sources:
Index of Passport Judgment is here.
Pasagadula Sai Kiran Vs UOI and Ors on 04 Aug 2022
A single Judge of AP High Court held that,
From Paras 5, 6 and 7,
5. In view of the fact that the 2nd respondent has been issuing such certificates to citizens staying abroad, the 2nd respondent cannot take the stand that since it is a voluntary service, there cannot be any direction to the 2nd respondent to issue or not to issue such certificates.
6. In the circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of directing the 2nd respondent to issue a police clearance certificate after recording all the cases filed against the petitioner which have come to the notice of the 2nd respondent. This can be done only after the 3rd respondent has informed the 2nd respondent in writing about the case, which is pending before the 3rd respondent.
7. Accordingly, the 3rd respondent is granted two weeks time to forward all the details of the cases against the petitioner available with the 3rd respondent. Upon receipt of such information, the 2nd respondent, within four weeks thereafter, shall issue a certificate as mentioned above. There shall be no order as to costs.
Citations:
Other Sources:
https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/andhra-pradesh-high-court-authorities-police-clearance-certificate-voluntary-service-citizens-abroad-206195
Index of Judgments is here.
