LawLoveLegal

Case Title and Bench The Supreme Court, in a recent judgment delivered by a bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice R. Mahadevan, held that the financial dominance of a husband over his estranged wife, in the context of a strained marital relationship, does not by itself amount to cruelty so as to attract prosecution under Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code.

Case Title / Court / Bench / Date Case: Writ Petitions filed by Canara Bank Branch Office and Others Court: Allahabad High Court Bench: Justice Rohit Ranjan Agarwal Decision Date: 16 December 2025 Statute Involved: Uttar Pradesh Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 Background of the Case The issue before the Allahabad High Court was whether a landlord can file an eviction application before the Rent Authority under the UP Regulation of Urban Premises Tenancy Act, 2021 , when: No written tenancy agreement was executed, and The landlord failed to furnish tenancy particulars to the Rent Authority. Earlier orders had rejected such eviction applications as non-maintainable , holding that absence of a written tenancy agreement ousted jurisdiction. The petitioners (including Canara Bank) challenged these findings. Key Legal Issue Before the Court Whether the Rent Authority under the UP Tenancy Act, 2021 has jurisdiction to entertain eviction applications in cases where: tenancy...

The Supreme Court has reiterated that suppression of criminal history while seeking bail amounts to an abuse of the legal process and is, by itself, sufficient ground for dismissal of a petition — irrespective of the merits of the case. The ruling reinforces the duty of candour expected from litigants invoking the Court’s discretionary jurisdiction. Case Background — Bail Plea Rejected for Concealment of Criminal Cases The ruling arose in Firoz @ Farhu v. State of Rajasthan , where the accused sought bail in a murder case registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe found that: The petitioner falsely declared that he had “no antecedents”. However, the State’s counter-affidavit revealed: One earlier criminal case registered in June 2023. Another case registered in August 2024. The Special Leave Petition was filed in August 2025 despite the petitioner’s knowledge of these cases. The Court held that the concealment was deliberate ...

Case Background — Separation, Abuse Allegations and Maintenance Proceedings The case arose out of matrimonial conflict between a couple married in January 2014, who had three minor children — two daughters and a son. Following allegations of physical, emotional and economic abuse, the wife separated and initiated proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 seeking maintenance for the children. In December 2023, the trial court directed the father to pay ₹30,000 per month as maintenance toward the three minor children until: the domestic violence case concluded, or the children attained majority. The father challenged the order before the Sessions Court, which dismissed his appeal in March 2024. He then approached the Delhi High Court, asserting financial incapacity and inequity in the award. Husband’s Argument — Wife Earns More, Maintenance Burden Should Be Reduced Before the High Court, the husband argued that: his monthly income was only ₹9,000 , his ...

The Bombay High Court has upheld the conviction and life sentence of Murgesh Pechi Muttu, a tailor, who murdered his mother-in-law Manju Swamy in 2012 using a scissor blade. The division bench of Justices Manish Pitale and Manjusha Deshpande dismissed the appeal challenging the conviction, holding that the prosecution had proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. Case Background and Incident Narrative The incident occurred on December 19, 2012 , at a transit camp residence in Borivali, Mumbai. The deceased, Manju Swamy , intervened when the accused began assaulting his wife Asha — her daughter — shortly before Asha was to leave for her nursing shift at Arihant Hospital. During the altercation: The accused removed a sharp blade from a pair of scissors Repeatedly assaulted Swamy on the head and back Continued the attack even after she fell unconscious The victim died before reaching the hospital. The Court observed that: “The ferocity of the assault and the fact that the victim died even ...

Background of the Case The Karnataka High Court has urged the Union Government to review the amended Section 6 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 , as modified by the Hindu Succession (Amendment) Act, 2005. The Court observed that while the amendment rightly strengthened the inheritance rights of daughters in coparcenary property, it has inadvertently created ambiguity regarding the inheritance position of widows and mothers , who were previously explicitly protected under the unamended provision. The decision was delivered by a Division Bench comprising Justice R. Devdas and Justice B. Muralidhara Pai . Issue Highlighted by the High Court The Court noted that: The unamended Section 6 expressly recognised widows and mothers at the stage of a notional partition . Their entitlement to a share in ancestral property was clearly protected. However, the amended Section 6 (post-2005) gives equal coparcenary rights to daughters, but does not explicitly refer to: • widows • mothers • widows of...

Background of the Case The Supreme Court of India has delivered a strong message against unauthorised constructions, holding that courts must not legitimise illegal structures merely because municipal regulations allow compounding on payment of fees. The observations were made while dismissing a petition challenging the demolition of unauthorised constructions in Secunderabad, Telangana. The appeal arose from a judgment of the Telangana High Court which had ordered the removal of illegal constructions raised without permission from the Secunderabad Cantonment Board. A Bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant and Justice Joymalya Bagchi emphasised that post-facto regularisation of illegal constructions defeats the rule of law and encourages rampant encroachment on public and private land. Supreme Court’s Observations: Rule of Law Cannot Be Compromised The apex court categorically held that demolition is the correct legal course where unauthorised constructions are raised, a...

Introduction: India’s First 24x7 Digital Court India’s justice system has long struggled with a massive judicial backlog, much of which arises from repetitive and high-volume cases. In November 2024, Kerala’s Kollam district launched the country’s first 24x7 Open and Networked (ON) Court , inaugurated by the current Chief Justice of India, BR Gavai. Designed as a digital-first judicial institution, the ON Court aims to simplify access to justice, speed up case disposal, improve communication between stakeholders, and create a model that can be replicated across India. One year later, the pilot project shows promising outcomes in efficiency, transparency, and user satisfaction. Origins of the ON Court Model Internal Judicial Brainstorming The idea originated within the Supreme Court of India and the Kerala High Court’s internal brainstorming sessions on modernising justice delivery. The goal was not merely digitisation but a complete restructuring of how courts function. The co...

The ongoing constitutional debate on the powers of governors and the President regarding pending state bills took a sharp turn as the Union government argued before the Supreme Court that states have no legal right to approach the top court under Article 32 to allege violation of their rights due to delayed or withheld assent. This submission came during the hearing of President Droupadi Murmu’s Article 143 reference in May, which seeks clarity on the April 8 Supreme Court ruling that prescribed timelines for the President and governors to act on pending bills. Key Arguments from the Union Government Appearing before a five-judge Constitution Bench led by Chief Justice of India Bhushan R Gavai , Solicitor General (SG) Tushar Mehta asserted that: States Cannot Claim Fundamental Rights The Constitution confers fundamental rights on citizens and individuals, not governments. A state is “the State” as defined under Article 12 and is a repository of duties , not a hold...