Free legal advice India

16/10/2022

26/11/2021

https://youtu.be/zawAWWDrl0E

13/05/2017

https://legalaidforlovers.wordpress.com/2017/04/06/thing-you-should-know-before-court-marriage-in-india/?preview_id=92&preview_nonce=3c658b6732

What is Court Marriage ? Ans: The marriage can be solemnized between any two persons of any religion under the provisions of the Special Marriage Act, 1954. Eligibility for Special Marriage Act are…

05/12/2013

For any legal advice please post on the page

16/11/2013

Police must register FIR in cognizable offence, says Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled that police are mandatorily required to register FIR when approached by complainants willing to report a cognizable offence

Police must register FIR in cognizable offence, says Supreme Court. The verdict was declared by a five judge Constitution bench led by Chief Justice P Sathasivam. The bench, in its ruling, stated that adequate disciplinary action must be taken against all police officers who fail to register a First Information Report (FIR) on complaints against cognizable offence.

The bench also stated that all preliminary investigations must be completed within no more than seven days. The objective of preliminary investigations, according to the law, is just to evaluate whether or not the complaint provides sufficient information about a serious offence (instead of evaluating the veracity of the complaint).

The apex court further mentioned that police are allowed to launch preliminary investigation before registering an FIR only in select few cases, including matrimonial dispute, financial mishandling, corruption as well as a small number of other categories.

It is worth mentioning here that cognizable offence is those where investigative officers are allowed to arrest the accused even without warrant. If convicted, cognizable offenders can be subject to a minimum imprisonment of three years.

What is a FIR???

A First Information Report (FIR as in Wikipedia) is a written document prepared by police organizations in Bangladesh, India, and Pakistan when they receive information about the commission of a cognizable offence. It is generally a complaint lodged w ith the police by the victim of a cognizable offense or by someone on his or her behalf, but anyone can make such a report either orally or in writing to the police.

An FIR is an important document because it sets the process of criminal justice in motion. It is only after the FIR is registered in the police station that the police take up investigation of the case. Anyone who knows about the commission of a cognizable offence, including police officers, can file an FIR.

As described in law,

When information about the commission of a cognizable offence is given orally, the police must write it down.
The person giving information or making a complaint has a right to demand that the information recorded by the police be read to him or her.
Once the information has been recorded by the police, it must be signed by the person giving the information.

03/11/2013

01/11/2013

Marriages Law Amendment Bill Slows down Divorce Proceedings
New records suggest that there has been a sharp 23 per cent drop in divorce cases in Mumbai as lawyers and their female clients wait for the proposed Marriage Law (amendment), reports DNA News
The proposed Marriages Law (Amendment) Bill has seen a 23 % drop in divorce cases in Mumbai as both lawyers and their female clients play a wait and watch game with the Bill coming up in the winter session of the Lok Sabha ( It has already been passed by the Rajya Sabha on August 26 of this year).
The Bill proposes amendments to both the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and the Special Marriage Act, 1954. These amendments include a property clause whereby 50 % of the husband’s property, both inherited and inheritable in the future, including any he has acquired after the marriage, may be ceded to his wife. The Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage clause allows for speedier separation if the husband and wife have stayed apart for a period of three years or more on the grounds of unfulfillment or unhappiness. It also states that women can oppose divorce if she can prove grave financial hardships as a result of the divorce, while men cannot.
Marriages Law Amendment Bill Slows down Divorce Proceedings
The Bill has been hailed as a long awaited step in the right direction by women activist groups who especially applaud the Bill’s determination of compensation to the wife as this now takes into account both the husbands current property and inheritable property, as in certain cases, the husband had been able to sell off the property in his name, thus denying the wife of adequate compensation.
But it has raised concerns among husbands and men’s activist groups, many of whom have slammed it as “anti men” and biased. It has raised fears that this bill, if passed into a law could be misused by women just like the anti dowry and domestic violence laws have been in the past, in order to extort more from the husband. This is aggravated by the fact that unlike other countries, Indian law does not recognize pre-nuptial agreements, which only adds to the woes of the married man considering a divorce.
Activists and Rights groups also fear the Bill could undermine the institution of marriage, as men hold off marriage fearing divorce proceedings, citing the example of countries such as China which roll backed a similar law as it had lead to a drop in the number of marriages and men had stopped buying property. Many experts have also pointed out that it could lead to a skyrocketing rise in divorce cases, many of them for all the wrong reasons.

27/10/2013

First Appeal against decree of recovery of possession - Appeal dismissed for default - Application for restoration filed beyond thirty days - alongwith condonation of delay application seeking condonation of delay u/s 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of 10 months 5 days delay - Delay condonation refused by First appellate court - WP moved before High court u/a 227. - Contention of respondent that proper remedy ought to have been an APPEAL FROM ORDER as set out in Order 43 Rule 1 (t) since refusal to condonation of delay amounts to refusal to restore (Shyam sundar Sharma relied) - HELD - In Shyamsundar the application for delay was under Rule 3A of Order 41, in present case it was u/s 5 of the Limitation Act. - Further Section 104 and Order 43 of CPC makes clear that no appeal shall lie from orders other than those passed under this section - Therefore only WP under article 227 is the only remedy. WP 2729/2012. Bombay High Court - Aurangabad Bench. Order dt.22/10/2013.

14/10/2013

06/10/2013

Know your rights and duty.........

05/10/2013

Family Court grants divorce to man on grounds of mental cruelty

1.10.2013 (UNI) If a woman repeatedly taunts her husband and calls him 'chhakka' (eu**ch), it amounts to mental cruelty, the family court said, while granting divorce to a couple married for over 10 years.
In a recent order passed by the Family Court at Bandra, the court said whenever the petitioner (husband) returned from office tired and wanting to sleep, the respondent (wife) used to crave for physical relations and, on refusal, called the petitioner 'chhakka (eu**ch).

The wife had also taunted him, saying she wanted a better and smart husband from an affluent family.

All this amounted to mental cruelty to him, the court observed.

Petitioner's advocate Paresh Desai said 'The court took into account that the husband had done his best to provide a good life to the wife but her nature caused a lot of harassment to the husband, who was left with no choice but to seek divorce.'

As per the husband's petition, the couple got married in 2003 and had two children. It was alleged that the wife would pick fights with the husband and his mother, and never took good care of the children.

The court also took into account the instances where the wife threatened to commit su***de as mental cruelty to the husband.

Denying all allegations, the wife moved an application seeking the restitution of conjugal rights.

The family court attempted a reconciliation but it did not work out, forcing the court to hear and decide upon the petition.

The court also accepted video recordings of the couple's arguments.

The bench said Though she was aware the arguments were being recorded, she used the most abusive and insulting words against her husband.

'She also threatened him for creating a scene and destroying her life.' UNI