Law News, 1st July 2020

Please Share :
Pin Share

Law News


The woman who remarries after the death of her husband is not entitled to receive widow pension

Suman Vs State of Haryana and Ors

Punjab & Haryana HC


CWP No. 28008/2017

The High Court has clarified that a woman who solemnizes ‘Kareva’ marriage after the death of her husband, is not entitled to receive widow pension as she is no longer a “destitute”.


Mother has an indefeasible legal right to natural guardianship vis-à-vis an illegitimate child

Dharmesh Vasantrai Shah Vs Renuka Prakash Tiwari

Bombay HC



    While deciding the instant custody matter, the court held that as per the provisions of Section 6 of Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956, it is a mother who is the natural guardian of an illegitimate child (whether boy or girl) and a father’s claim only comes in second to mother’s.


Wife entitled to maintenance even if she runs a business and earns

Sanjay Damodar Kale Vs Kalyani Sanjay Kale and Anr

Bombay HC



    The High Court recently while hearing a criminal revision application filed by a 51-year-old man from Pune against a family court judgment directing him to pay monthly maintenance to his ex-wife, held that she is entitled to maintenance even if she runs a business and has her own source of income.


‘Disgruntled’ Wives Using Section 498A IPC As A Weapon To Harass Relatives Of Husband

Amarjit Kaur and others Vs Jaswinder Kaur and another

Punjab and Haryana HC


CRM-M No.13517 of 2018

    The High Court has expressed its concern against the misuse of Section 498A IPC by ‘disgruntled wives’.

While quashing a case filed by a woman against her in-laws, justice Jaishree Thakur observed:

“It has become a common practice to use the provisions of Section 498- A IPC as a weapon rather than shield by disgruntled wives. The simplest way to harass is to get the relatives of the husband roped in under this provision, no matter they are bed ridden grand parents of the husband or the relatives living abroad for decades.”

The accused in-laws of the complainant had approached the High Court seeking to quash the criminal case registered against them. On a perusal of the complaint, the court observed that it does not disclose specific allegations against the petitioners except casual reference of their names that the husband of the complainant gave her beatings at the instance of petitioners.

The court then quashed the complaint on the ground that prima facie case was not attracted against the in-laws in the absence of specific allegations.


Evidence collected in breach of Right To Privacy alone doesn’t make it inadmissible

Deepti Kapur Vs Kunal Julka

Delhi HC


CM(M) 40/2019

    In a significant judgment pertaining to rules for collection and admissibility of evidence, the Delhi High Court has held that evidence collected in breach of the fundamental right to privacy alone, would not make it inadmissible in court of law. The observation has been made by the court while deciding an appeal preferred by the wife from the order of the Family Court, allowing the husband to bring on record the evidence comprised in a Compact Disk that allegedly violated her right to privacy.