LawLoveLegal

Introduction The Supreme Court of India has once again drawn a firm line between genuine cases of sexual exploitation and criminal proceedings arising out of failed consensual relationships , warning that indiscriminate invocation of rape charges poses a “profound concern” for both justice delivery and the credibility of criminal law. In a significant judgment delivered by a bench of Justice BV Nagarathna and Justice Ujjal Bhuyan , the Court quashed criminal proceedings against a Chhattisgarh-based advocate accused of rape on the alleged false promise of marriage, holding that criminal law cannot be weaponised to settle personal scores after a relationship turns sour . Factual Background of the Case Allegations by the Complainant The complainant, a 33-year-old advocate , alleged that: She entered into a physical relationship with the accused advocate from September 2022 The relationship continued till January 2025 The accused allegedly promised to marry her She became pregnant during...

Background of the Case The Allahabad High Court, in a recent ruling dated 7 November , declined to grant police protection to a couple claiming to be in a live-in relationship. The petition was filed by Sonam and her alleged partner (referred to as petitioner no. 2), who sought a writ of mandamus to restrain the woman’s husband and the police from interfering in their lives. The Court emphasized that the woman was still legally married under the Hindu Marriage Act , and therefore, the claimed “live-in relationship” could not be accorded legal protection. Court’s Key Observation: Freedom Cannot Override Legal Rights Freedom vs. Statutory Rights Justice Vivek Kumar Singh held that although an adult has autonomy over personal choices, including relationships, such autonomy is not absolute . The Court clarified that the right to personal liberty under the Constitution cannot be exercised to violate the statutory rights of another person . Quote from the judgment: “A spouse has sta...

Introduction: The Supreme Court’s Remark Sparks Debate The Supreme Court of India recently made headlines while hearing a petition filed by Hasin Jahan, the estranged wife of Indian cricketer Mohammad Shami, challenging the Calcutta High Court’s order granting her ₹4 lakh as monthly maintenance. The bench of Justices Manoj Misra and Ujjal Bhuyan, while issuing notice to Shami, observed that ₹4 lakh per month appeared to be “quite reasonable.” The remark has stirred public debate on the concept of maintenance under Indian law — how courts determine what is “reasonable,” and how such determinations balance lifestyle disparities between spouses. Background: Calcutta High Court’s Interim Maintenance Order The Calcutta High Court’s July 1 order fixed ₹1.5 lakh as monthly maintenance for Hasin Jahan and ₹2.5 lakh for the couple’s daughter, totaling ₹4 lakh. The division bench of the High Court later upheld this order on August 25, 2024. Before this, the trial court had ordered Shami ...