D. Velusamy Vs D. Patchaiammal on 21 October 2010

Posted on May 15, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Justice Katju held as follows:

33. In our opinion a ‘relationship in the nature of marriage’ is akin to a common law marriage. Common law marriages require that although not
being formally married :-
(a) The couple must hold themselves out to society as being akin to spouses.
(b) They must be of legal age to marry.
(c) They must be otherwise qualified to enter into a legal marriage, including being unmarried.
(d) They must have voluntarily cohabited and held themselves out to the world as being akin to spouses for a significant period of time.
In our opinion a ‘relationship in the nature of marriage’ under the 2005 Act must also fulfill the above requirements, and in addition the parties
must have lived together in a ‘shared household’ as defined in Section 2(s) of the Act. Merely spending weekends together or a one night stand would not make it a ‘domestic relationship’.

Citations: []

Rambabu Singh Thakur Vs Sunil Arora on 13 February 2020

Posted on May 12, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Justice Rohinton F Nariman has passed the following directions, sitting in a division bench along with Justice S. Ravindra Bhat,

From Para 4,

4. We have also noted that the political parties offer no explanation as to why candidates with pending criminal cases are selected as candidates in the first place. We therefore issue the following directions in exercise of our constitutional powers under Articles 129 and 142 of the Constitution of India:
1) It shall be mandatory for political parties [at the Central and State election level] to upload on their website detailed information regarding individuals with pending criminal cases (including the nature of the offences, and relevant particulars such as whether charges have been framed, the concerned Court, the case number etc.) who have been selected as candidates, along with the reasons for such selection, as also as to why other individuals without criminal antecedents could not be selected as candidates.
2) The reasons as to selection shall be with reference to the qualifications, achievements and merit of the candidate concerned, and not mere “winnability” at the polls.
3) This information shall also be published in:
(a) One local vernacular newspaper and one national newspaper;
(b) On the official social media platforms of the political party, including Facebook & Twitter.
4) These details shall be published within 48 hours of the selection of the candidate or not less than two weeks before the first date for filing of nominations, whichever is earlier.
5) The political party concerned shall then submit a report of compliance with these directions with the Election Commission within 72 hours of the selection of the said candidate.
6) If a political party fails to submit such compliance report with the Election Commission, the Election Commission shall bring such non-compliance by the political party concerned to the notice of the Supreme Court as being in contempt of this Court’s orders/directions.

Rambabu Singh Thakur Vs Sunil Arora on 13 February 2020

Citations: [2020 SCC OnLine SC 178]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/178919210/ or https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2020/02/13/sc-directs-political-parties-to-publish-criminal-antecedents-of-candidates-give-reasons-for-their-selection/ or https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/rambabu-singh-thakur-versus-sunil-arora-ors

The original Judgment is here.

Santosh Prasad Vs The State of Bihar on 14 February 2020

Posted on May 11, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court discussed who can be a Sterling witness on whose deposition can a conviction be based and this packed this false rape case into Dustbin.

Santosh Prasad Vs The State of Bihar on 14 February 2020

Citations: [AIR 2020 SC 985]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/68886715/ or https://www.indianemployees.com/judgments/details/santosh-prasad-santosh-kumar-versus-the-state-of-bihar

RE Vijay Kurle and Ors on 04 May 2020

Posted on May 8, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court has rejected all of the interim application filed by the contemnors and held that they have no valid grounds to entertain the interim applications challenging the very judgment itself and for recalling of judgment.

RE Vijay Kurle and Ors on 04 May 2020

Azra Ismail Vs UT of Jammu and Kashmir on 05 May 2020

Posted on May 6, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

High Court of Jammu and Kashmir has given a detailed analysis and conclusions (and limitations it has to implement the conclusions itself) on a 148-year old tradition in Jammu and Kashmir called as Darbar Move. More details here.

Azra Ismail Vs UT of Jammu and Kashmir on 05 May 2020

Yashita Sahu Vs State of Rajasthan on 20 January 2020

Posted on April 30, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Father given custody of minor girl-child.

Yashita Sahu Vs State of Rajasthan on 20 January 2020

Citations: AIR 2020 SC 577

Raghuvansh Dewanchand Bhasin Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr on 9 September 2011

Posted on April 28, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Even though Supreme Court upheld High Court decision in holding the Police officer who executed the cancelled Non-bailable warrant against the practicing advocate, it held that Police officer was sufficiently reprimanded. High Court had also granted a compensation of Rs.2000/- from the personal account of Police officer to the Advocate!!!

Raghuvansh Dewanchand Bhasin Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr on 9 September 2011

Citations: [2012 SCC 9 791], [2011 AIOL 663], [2012 AIR BOMR 1 197], [2011 AIR SC 3393], [2011 AIR SC 5347], [2011 ANJ SC SUPP 2 65], [2012 BOMCR CRI SC 1 260], [2011 JT 10 253], [2011 RCR CRIMINAL SC 4 212], [2011 SCALE 10 233], [2011 SLT 7 1], [2012 SCC CRI 4 679]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1934058/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/575fd363607dba63d7e6e2d9

Revanasiddappa and Anr Vs Mallikarjun and Ors on 31 March 2011

Posted on April 23, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court was constrained to take a view different from the one taken by it in Bharatha Matha on Section 16(3) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

From Para 41,

41. In the instant case, Section 16(3) as amended, does not impose any restriction on the property right of such children except limiting it to the property of their parents. Therefore, such children will have a right to whatever becomes the property of their parents, whether self acquired or ancestral.

But thankfully, referred the matter to a larger bench in March 2011.

43. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the matter should be reconsidered by a larger Bench and for that purpose the records of the case be placed before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice of India for constitution of a larger Bench.

Revanasiddappa and Anr Vs Mallikarjun and Ors on 31 March 2011

Citations: [2011 SCJ 4 4], [2011 AIOL 244], [2011 CTC 2 810], [2013 ILR 4291], [2011 SCC 11 1], [2011 MWN CIVIL 3 528], [2011 MLJ 5 392], [2011 GLH 1 757], [2011 JCR SC 2 259], [2011 CLT SC 112 469], [2011 LW 3 255], [2011 SCALE 4 189], [2011 SCR 4 675], [2011 AIC 101 73], [2011 SCSUPPL CHN 4 50], [2011 AIR SC 2447], [2011 CALLT 3 58], [2011 KCCR 2 1531], [2011 AIR SC SUPP 155], [2011 JT SC 4 90], [2011 AWC SC 3 3126], [2011 UJ 2 1342], [2011 SCC CIV 3 581], [2011 KERLT 2 176], [2011 CGLRW 2 13], [2011 CUTLT 112 469], [2011 GUJ LH 1 757], [2011 ALR 86 450], [2011 RLW SC 3 2547], [2012 CCC SC 4 279]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/138849/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609aef4e4b014971141545b

The current status of this case is as follows:

12574_2003_8_5_21000_Order_24-Feb-2020

The earlier Judgment contradicted by this one is Bharatha Matha and Anr Vs R. Vijaya Renganathan and Ors here.

Bharatha Matha and Anr Vs R. Vijaya Renganathan and Ors on 17 May 2010

Posted on April 23, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Supreme Court has settled the following question of law:

the question of inheritance of co-parcenery property by the illegitimate children, who were born out of the live-in-relationship, could not arise.

Bharatha Matha and Anr Vs R. Vijaya Renganathan and Ors on 17 May 2010

Citations: [2010 AIR SCC 2685], [2010 AIR SCC 0 3503], [2010 CTC 3 654], [2010 JT 5 534], [2010 RCR CIVIL 3 252], [2010 SCCC 11 483], [2010 AD 6 478], [2010 SCC 0 515], [2010 SCCJ 5 442], [2010 ALT 5 4], [2010 LW 4 791], [2010 MLJ 7 953], [2010 SLT 4 419], [2010 AIOL 333], [2010 SCALE 6 53], [2010 SUPREME 4 433], [2010 SCCC CIV 4 498], [2010 AIC 91 54], [2010 CALLJ 2 176], [2010 ALR 81 230]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1513913/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609aee7e4b0149711415176

This is contradicted (but NOT overruled) in Revanasiddappa And Another v. Mallikarjun And Others here.

Badshah Vs Urmila Badshah Godse and Anr on 18 October 2013

Posted on April 9, 2020 by ShadesOfKnife

Justice A.K.Sikri in a 2-judge bench had held that, for the purpose of claiming maintenance under Section 125, Cr.P.C., such a woman (who is not a legally wedded wife), is to be treated as the legally wedded wife.

From Para 25,

25. Thus, while interpreting a statute the court may not only take into consideration the purpose for which the statute was enacted, but also the mischief it seeks to suppress. It is this mischief rule, first propounded in Heydon’s Case[11] which became the historical source of purposive interpretation. The court would also invoke the legal maxim construction ut res magis valeat guam pereat, in such cases i.e. where alternative constructions are possible the Court must give effect to that which will be responsible for the smooth working of the system for which the statute has been enacted rather than one which will put a road block in its way. If the choice is between two interpretations, the narrower of which would fail to achieve the manifest purpose of the legislation should be avoided. We should avoid a construction which would reduce the legislation to futility and should accept the bolder construction based on the view that Parliament would legislate only for the purpose of bringing about an effective result. If this interpretation is not accepted, it would amount to giving a premium to the husband for defrauding the wife. Therefore, at least for the purpose of claiming maintenance under Section 125, Cr.P.C., such a woman is to be treated as the legally wedded wife.

Badshah Vs Urmila Badshah Godse and Anr on 18 October 2013

Citations: [2014 SCJ 2 779], [2014 CRILJ 1076], [2014 SCC 1 188], [2013 SCALE 12 681], [2014 CRLJ SC 1076], [2013 RCR CRIMINAL SC 4 764], [2013 CTC 6 86], [2014 AIR SC 256], [2014 NCC 1 238], [2013 RLW SC 4 3670], [2013 AIOL 3407], [2013 AD SC 11 9], [2013 RCR CIVIL SC 4 830], [2013 SCC ONLINE SC 946], [2014 JLJR SC 1 78], [2014 LW CRL 1 646], [2014 SCC CIV 1 51], [2013 JCC SC 4 2765], [2014 LW 2 936], [2013 ACR 3 3010], [2014 MPHT 2 499], [2014 GLH 1 273], [2013 KERLT 4 367], [2013 ALR 101 704], [2013 BOMCR CRI SC 4 616], [2013 SLT 9 543], [2013 DMC 3 518], [2014 ECRN 1 241], [2014 AIR SC 869], [2013 JT 13 570], [2013 AIC 132 108]

Other Source links: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/15901386/ or https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5609af37e4b0149711415daf

Earlier Chanmuniya judgment is here.

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Tag: 2-Judge (Division) Bench Decision

D. Velusamy Vs D. Patchaiammal on 21 October 2010

Rambabu Singh Thakur Vs Sunil Arora on 13 February 2020

Santosh Prasad Vs The State of Bihar on 14 February 2020

RE Vijay Kurle and Ors on 04 May 2020

Azra Ismail Vs UT of Jammu and Kashmir on 05 May 2020

Yashita Sahu Vs State of Rajasthan on 20 January 2020

Raghuvansh Dewanchand Bhasin Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr on 9 September 2011

Revanasiddappa and Anr Vs Mallikarjun and Ors on 31 March 2011

Bharatha Matha and Anr Vs R. Vijaya Renganathan and Ors on 17 May 2010

Badshah Vs Urmila Badshah Godse and Anr on 18 October 2013