CASES Flashcards
widow gets coparcenary property does FIL have to maintain
her (hindu)
no, as per Animithu v gandhimmal
live in Relationship- children legitimate? maintencance?
tulsa v Dhurgatiya
balusubramanyam v suruttayan- children will be legitimate, and anyway 125 crpc u gotta maintain ur kids
bigamy
lily thomas v uoi - bigamy applicaple to both male and fem
joined religious organisations and retreated from world
sital das v sant ram participate in certain rituals and ceremonies that are required by their religion,- ground for divorce as now sanyasi
assuming dead previous husb and NOT obtained divorce decree, but marrying new one- old husband can question valididty of new marriage due to bigamy
Nirmoo v Nikkaram
rules of cruelty to est divorce- evidence, apprehension, no condoning cruelty, no taking advantage of position
dastane v dastane
cruelty comes in many forms and it is boudnless thus cannot be defined
Ravi kumar v Jumli Devi
maintenance pendente lite
malhotra v malhotra
for adoption if married - require consent from spouse consnet must be in writing or through an affirmative act done voluntarily
Ghisalal v Dhapubai
refusing to take part in the divorce process and compelling the appellant to remain in a dead marriage would both be considered acts of mental cruelty.
Samar ghosh v jaya ghosh- it also conveys no divorce through mutual consent
- adopted child also acquires the caste of adoptive parents
(khazan singh v UOI)
conjugal rights
T sareetha v T venkatta Subbaiah- andhra pradesh HC declared s.9 violative of constitional rights sich as article 19, 14, 21,
and said it takes away bodily autonomy and forces intercourse.
Harvinder Kaur v Harmander Singh- states that it is valid because conjugal rights arent solely based on intercourse and that family law cannot be conjectured w constitional? idk
Saroj Rani v Sudershan Kumar- stated that it is valid because if restitution of conjugal rights judgement is not followed for 1 year it becomes a ground for divorce and any attachment of property is just a sanction to that judgement is merely a financial incentive to resume conjugal rights- if not then 1 yr later divorce anyway
mother is also a natural guardian and no less than father- whoever is deeply concerned with welfare of child, whoever is capable of and available for taking care of the child and is deeply interested in the welfare of the child, and that need not necessarily be the father.
Githa hariharan v RBI
husband died after that wife adopted son but then she also dies 2 weeks later- adoptive son claimed rights in deceased husbands proprty- he can claim
Sawan Ram v Kalawati
)A custody dispute between the father and the maternal grandparents. The mother of the minor had died under suspicious circumstances, and the father was tried under s. 304 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and convicted by the trial court, but acquitted by the appellate court. children chose to live with grandad
ram nath v Dudeja
husb asking for money not cruelty but if it is context of dowry- yes cruelty
Shobha Rani v Madhukar Reddy
wife cruelty to husband cases
Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur- she was cruel but he condoned by intercourse- so cruelty not grounds. ruled in favour of wife
Anita jain v Rajendra kumar jain- wife accused hus of adultry with sister in law when allegations were false and they had lived in sperate houses for years so it is clear the marriage had an irretrievable breakdown, thus cruel
wife died in sus circumstance and husb charged for 498a- cruelty to wife. maternal uncle took custody q
Joshi v Pradip Joshi
similar to ram nath v dudeja
christian lady did not want to reveal identity of baby dady as it was out of wedlock. applied for natural guardianship, ruled: no need to inform babydaddy we cannot violate right to privacy by forcing her.
ABC v state
can inherit from live in relationships if lived 2gether for considerable amt of time
VIdhyadhari v Sukhrana bai
the court did not give validity to the Chhor Chithhi as a complete decree of divorce.
awarded maintenance
Daga v Daga
husb gotta give maintenance regardless of wifes income to ensure she has the living standard as when they were married q
Neela Rakesh Jain v Rakesh Jeetmal
harrassment for dowryis cruelty in live in relatioship also
Koppisetti Subramanian vs. State of Andhra
the husband had married the first wife and then married the second wife without obtaining a divorce from the first wife. The second wife filed a petition for maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC, and the court granted her maintenance, taking into account the husband’s income, his obligation to maintain both wives, and the financial needs of the second wife.
Suresh Babu v geetha
maintenance for live in relationship
ajay bharatwaj v jyostna maintenance for live in relationship
no male heirs and wished to adopt a son to continue his family lineage, so adopted son without asking daughter. ruled: no need for daughters consent
brijendra Singh v State of Madhya Pradesh
woman wanted to adopt a kid but was given the title of guardian as muslim law does not allow adoption,, but then the issue was raised thay secular law allows everyone to adopt so which will prevail and the court held that everyone had the right to be adopted so woman was given the right to adopt and was declared parent.
Shabnam Hashmi v Union Of India
liability of payment time is limited to iddat period BUT you have to come to an agreement of how many years this will support her. for ex 10 years ka maintenance to be payed within 3 months
Daniel Latifi v UOI
a woman has right to claim maintenance beyond iddat period till remarriage under 125 CrPC and since it is a criminal law not civil law- it is applicable secularly
then came muslim womenn protection of rights on divroce act vote bank politics- stated that ok only give maintenance till iddat but who will maintain wife? the people that would inherit if the woman dies will maintiain her and if not her then the waqf board will
mohammad ahmed khan v shah bano begum
, it was observed that the character of Muslim marriage is similar to that of a civil contract, as like civil contract marriage under Muslim law requires of offer (Ijab) from one side and acceptance (Qubul) from another side, which must be out of the free will, without any coercion, undue influence and fraud on the part of both the parties. In case of both the parties being minor, they have the right to either set aside or follow the terms of marriage.
Abdul Kadir Vs. Salima
Yousuf Rawther Vs. Sowramma where it was observed that it is a disbelief that Muslim man has an absolute power to liquidate the marriage as and when they want under Quranic law and instant divorce does not accord with Islamic injunction. The Holy Quran forbids to divorce his wife till she remains faithful to him.
Yousuf Rawther Vs. Sowramma
Ahmed Khan Vs. Shah Bano Begum
ruled against the principles of the Muslim Personal Law when filing a maintenance claim with a divorced Muslim woman under Article 125 of CrPC, despite the ban under Muslim personal law. Shah Bano, a Muslim woman, had been divorced by her husband. She filed a maintenance action under Article 125 of the CrPC. In defending Shah Bano’s claim under section 125 of the CrPC., despite its prohibition under Muslim personal law, the Supreme Court expressed the hope that Parliament would take steps to enact the Uniform Civil Code under Article 44 of Constitution.
Shayara Bano
of Shayara Bano, the triple talaq was challenged on the basis that it violates several fundamental rights such as Article 14, 15(1), 21, and also Article 25. The court had a divided opinion of 3:2, where the majority held that the practice of Triple Talaq is unConstitutional and violates the Fundamental Rights of Muslim Women. The majority found that the practice of Triple Talaq is not essential to religion. Therefore, as per the majority, it was held that triple talaq was not to be protected under Article 25 of the Indian Constitution as it is not an essential element of the religion
no conversion to different religion just to marry more wives- its not a genuine conversion and does not count
Sarla Mughdal v uoi
no conversion to different religion just to marry more wives- its not a genuine conversion and does not count
Sarla Mughdal v uoi
