What are the opening hours?

Monday 9am - 5pm Tuesday 9am - 5pm Wednesday 9am - 5pm Thursday 9am - 5pm Friday 9am - 5pm

https://www.facebook.com/102187098611158/

AG Law Firm, Chamber No. 171, Block-C, Distt. Court Jagadhri, Yamuna Nagar, Yamunanagar (2026)

28/01/2022

One of victory of AG LAW FIRM

10/09/2021

SAY HOW :- correct your spelling mistake of name and date of birth in any of certificate,mark sheet and degree of any board of school and university. , , , ,

20/04/2021

The Kerala High Court held that a child born to a couple in a live-in relationship will be treated as a child born to a married couple for the purpose of the Juvenile Justice Act and Adoption Guidelines.

The Bench comprising of Justice A Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Dr Kauser Edappagath noted for the purpose of “surrendering a child for adoption” under the Juvenile Justice Act, the Child Welfare Committee shall treat a child born to a couple in a live-in relationship as if it was born to a married couple.

Getting To Know The Facts
Anitha* (name changed by the court to protect identity), gave her child up to a Child Welfare Committee (Committee), moved by anxiety when her partner John moved to another State and broke the relationship for a while.

During this interval, between making attempts to contact her partner, Anitha handed over her child to the Committee in May last year, executing a Deed of Surrender in June.

In light of these developments, Anitha and John approached the Kerala High Court under a habeas corpus petition, demanding that their child be returned to them.

Therefore, the question before the court was whether a couple in a live-in relationship could be equated to a married couple for the purpose of surrender.

Couples in Live-In Relationships Also Have Biological Parental Rights
While noting that the parental right of biological parents is a natural right not preconditioned by the institutionalisation of legal marriage, the court held that the couples in a live-in relationship also have a right to restoration.

The Kerala High Court said:

“Marriage as a social institution depends upon personal law or secular law like Special Marriage Act. It has no bearing on the concept of Juvenile Justice… In a live-in relationship, a couple acknowledges the mutual rights and obligations. It is more of a contract. Offspring in such a relationship is acknowledging biological parental rights of both.”

The court further held that since the birth certificate of the child has both Anitha and John’s names as parents, it shows the intention of the couple to acknowledge their relationship.

Therefore, the Child Welfare Committee shouldn’t have inquired about the legal status of the marriage, not being the competent authority to decide on such status.

“Once it is found that the child is born to a couple, for all practical purposes of JJ Act, inquiry must be initiated as though the child belonged to a married couple.”

Therefore, the court ruled that the entire process followed in giving the child up for adoption was vitiated since only Anitha signed the surrender deed.

Holding that the newly adoptive parents accrued no right since the process itself was illegal, the Court set aside the adoption and ordered that the child be restored to the couple.

, , , , , , , ,

14/04/2021

The High Court of Allahabad has held that the fact that a woman entered into a new relationship without securing divorce would not deprive her of off custody of her minor child.

Disposing of a plea filed by one Ram Kumar Gupta in the name of his son Anmol Shivhare, Justice JJ Munir observed, “The fact that the mother has walked away from her husband’s home without securing a divorce and entered into a new relationship with another person, which she ostensibly believes to be a second marriage, may be something that the law and the society frown upon, but, in itself, is something not so depraved or immoral as to deprive the mother of her special place in the minor’s life.”

The Court further observed that “depriving the minor of his mother’s company might have an adverse impact on his overall development.”

Petitioner Gupta said that Sanyogita’s marriage to another person is nullity because it is a second marriage in the lifetime of her husband and due to this she has lost her right to Anmol’s custody. Further, the minor’s custody with Sanyogita, in the home of a stranger, has been dubbed as unlawful. According to him, the minor’s life in the stranger’s home is at risk. The minor has a bleak future, he said.

It is the minor’s welfare that he may be placed in his father’s custody, who is his natural guardian, in preference to the mother, who has walked out on her lawfully wedded husband without a divorce, and is staying in a live-in relationship with a stranger, said the petition.

During the Court proceedings, mother Sanyogita indicated that Gupta is an unkind father. Further, she said she was treated with cruelty by him and that is why she walked out on him.

On this, the Court said that this is the court’s concern to determine whether the minor would be safe and his welfare ensured in his mother’s new home.

After interacting with Sanyogita and her minor son, the Court said, “The way the minor’s mother has detailed her circumstances in new home, this court feels that the minor, for the present, is well adapted into his mother’s new family”.

“So far as dominant and substantial part of the minor’s custody and care are concerned, this court is of opinion that these would be better secured in the mother’s hands, in comparison to the father,” remarked the Court.

However, the Court ensured the visitation rights of the father, saying that the rights of the minor to his father’s company have to be ensured at all costs. The Court directed that wife Sanyogita would be obliged to take the minor to his father’s home at Kanpur once in two months, on any Sunday of the month.

14/04/2021

The Supreme Court said a husband
cannot abdicate the responsibility of paying maintenance to his estranged wife and gave a last opportunity to a man to clear entire outstanding of Rs 2.60 crore along with monthly payout of Rs 1.75 lakh to his wife, failing which he would be imprisoned. The man, who claimed to have been working on a project of national security in the telecom sector, said that he had no money and sought two years to pay the money.

The Top Court said however that he has lost credibility by failing repeatedly to follow the court's order and wondered how a person with this kind of case was associated with a project of national security.

A bench comprising of Chief Justice Bobde and Justices AS Bopanna and V Ramasubramanian told the man, a Tamil Nadu resident, Husband cannot abdicate from his responsibility to provide maintenance to his wife and it is his duty to provide the maintenance".

It ordered, Accordingly by way of last chance, we permit the respondent (man) to make payment of the entire outstanding amount along with the monthly maintenance regularly to his wife…within a period of four weeks from today, failing which, the respondent may have to be punished and sent to civil prison.

The top court listed the matter after four weeks to see whether its order has been complied. In case the amount is not paid, orders of arrest and imprisonment may be passed against the respondent on that date. It noted that the man has been directed by the trial court and the decision upheld by the top court and the high court to pay money to his wife under two heads which include monthly maintenance of Rs 1.75 lakh and the other is the past arrears of maintenance from the year 2009 which amounts to approximately Rs 2.60 crore, of which Rs 50,000 has been paid.

Read also : जनसंख्या नियंत्रण कानून: अब स्वामी जितेंद्रानंद सरस्वती ने खटखटाया सुप्रीम कोर्ट का दरवाजा
During the hearing, senior advocate Basava Prabhu Patil appearing for the woman, said that despite the top court directing the husband to pay the arrears and monthly maintenance amount while deciding the review petition he has not been paying it and instead leading a lavish lifestyle.

The bench told advocate Rohit Sharma, appearing for the husband, that he has not complied with even a single order of the courts and if he does not make the payments within two-three weeks, he will be sent to jail. Sharma said that no interest will be served if he is sent to jail and even the wife will not get the maintenance, to which the bench told him it would serve the interest of justice.

The husband, who himself appeared before the court through video conferencing, said he has put all his money in research and development in a project related to national security in the telecom sector.

The bench said that it may order an investigation against him but then the consequence will be disastrous for him and it would be better if he makes the payment, which has been committed before the court in 2018, in two-three weeks.

Patil said that he has enough money and is trying to siphon off his funds invested in his five companies to a Germany based company. When the husband again reiterated that he is working on a project of national security which would protect hacking of telecom networks from China, the bench said, With this kind of case, how is this person involved in a project of national security.

The annoyed bench asked the man to borrow money or to take loan from a bank and pay the maintenance and arrear amount to his wife within one week or he will be straightaway sent to jail. The husband claimed that his wife is a very influential person and has good contacts in the media, which she was using to tarnish his image.

The bench said, We are not influenced by the media, we go by the facts of each case. The facts in this case suggest that you have not complied with our orders. You have lost your credibility. You pay the money in one week or go to jail. The bench, however, on the request of the husband's counsel gave him four weeks to pay the outstanding amount. The wife had filed a case under Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act before the metropolitan magistrate court in Chennai in 2009. The court allowed the wife to share the house, until the husband made alternative arrangements for her permanent residence.

It directed the husband, to pay Rs 2 crore as maintenance to the wife; Rs 50 lakh compensation for deserting her for 12 years; Rs 50 lakh for living in extra marital life; Rs 50 lakh for leaving his wife to face the court cases; Rs 50 lakh to force to take a job in a media company; Rs 50 lakh for mental torture and agony by openly living with foreign women and Rs 50 lakh for not paying rent to the shared household. On the appeal filed by the husband against the order, the Sessions court directed him to pay Rs 1 lakh per month towards maintenance from the date of filing the petition which is January 6, 2009 and Rs 75,000 per month for residential accommodation from the said date.

The high court upheld the order of Sessions court on December 2, 2016, after which the husband filed the appeal in the top court, which was dismissed by the top court on October 26, 2017 with a direction that within six months he would pay the maintenance and arrears. Thereafter a review petition was filed in 2018 by the wife and the husband was directed to clear the arrears of maintenance Rs 1.75 lakh by the 10th day of every month.

, , , , , , ,

09/04/2021

The Bombay high court (HC) restrained a city businessman and his parents from creating any third-party rights in the movable or immovable properties held by them either independently or jointly, as he failed to clean the pending dues of interim maintenance to his estranged wife and minor daughter.

The bench of justice Prasanna Varale and justice Milind Jadhav also directed the businessman, owner of an elevator manufacturing firm, to submit an inventory of all the movable and immovable properties belonging to him and his parents.

The directives came on a petition filed by his wife complaining about non-compliance of an order passed by a metropolitan magistrate court on June 30, 2018 directing the businessman to pay monthly interim maintenance of ₹75,000 per month to his minor daughter and ₹1.50 lakh to his wife.

The order was passed by the magistrate on a complaint lodged by the petitioner woman invoking provisions of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

In the petition filed through advocate DP Singh, the woman complained that her husband had not complied with the magisterial order, and as of June 2020, he had not clears arrears of more than ₹44 lakh. Counsel for the petitioner, advocate Amogh Singh, on Friday pointed out that earlier on June 9, another division bench had directed the Andheri-based businessman to clear the arrears by the next date, but he has not complied with the order.

The businessman responded to the petition by pointing out that he has already paid sum of ₹15 lakh to his wife, and he could not pay the balance amount as he himself was facing financial difficulties on account of partial closure of business due to Covid-19 lockdown. He also offered to deposit ₹5 lakh more in his wife’s bank account in a week.

The offer, however, failed to impress the bench, which took note of the reference made by the woman to certain movable and immovable properties held by her husband and his parents in her application under provisions of the Act, and issued the restraining order.

HC has also observed that the non-compliance on part of the businessman may amount to wilful breach of HC order, inviting action for contempt of the court, and has kept the issue pending for future consideration.

The matter will now come up for further hearing after two weeks.

, , , , , ,

04/04/2021

Cyber defamation or online defamation refers to any act which has taken place through online mode or a person, is defamed in cyberspace. This kind of defamatory statement is made mainly when the computer has a proper internet connection and it is used as a weapon or a device to defame a person by posting something irrelevant or any defamatory statement in various social networking sites like Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, or emails, just to defame the person with all clear intention.

The social networking sites has undoubtedly become a great blessing in our lives and it has also helped in the societal development but it has also become an equally effective breeding ground for defaming a person by making defamatory statements.
The medium of committing such an act is different, although the law of defamation is the same.

The liability behind cyber defamation law is as follows:
On the author of the derogatory material/statement online
If the retailer or the service provider acts as an intermediary without providing any kind of modification in the context of defamation, the intermediary is not liable according to section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000. In addition to this protection, it is also subject to the condition that the intermediary shall comply with intermediary guidelines and due-diligence which are imposed by the Central Government and such inflammatory or illegal content needs to get removed as soon as the government agency receives the original or the actual content.
Unfortunately, nowadays a lot of people are experiencing cyber defamation. Consider the Gurugram su***de case in the news. A 12th standard boy committed su***de when a girl posted an Instagram story that the boy r***d her. She mentioned that she was r***d by him two years ago and she has no proof to justify her statement. Her story instantly got viral and people started supporting her by sharing it on various platforms without giving a thought to the truth. The accused boy was pronounced guilty by the court of Instagram. This new social media law society of India made that little boy end up his life.

Essential Elements:
The necessary elements for a statement to qualify as a defamatory statement are as follows:
Modification
Pictures that are modified to disgrace or dishonor the reputation of another person are also a clear case of defamation.

Facts
The statement should be presented not as an opinion but as a fact. Facts are statements that can be proved accurate or inaccurate while opinions are your personal perspectives or observations.

Publication
The statement of fact should be published on any social networking site, and then only a person can file a defamation complaint.

Opinions
Opinions are privileged under the law. So an opinion in itself is not a defamatory statement. But at times, few opinions are considered, as facts by the court, if they have caused actual damage to another party.

Laws that are implemented on cyber defamation in India
In India, a person can be made liable for defamation, both under civil and criminal law.

Under IPC that is Indian Penal Code
Section 499 of Indian Penal Code says that Whoever by words either spoken or intended to be read or by signs and visual representations makes or publishes any imputation concerning any person intending to harm or knowing or having reason to believe that such imputation will harm the reputation of such person is said, except in the cases hereinafter excepted to defame that person.

Section 500 of IPC provides for punishment wherein any person held liable under section 499 will be punishable with imprisonment of two years or fine or both.
Section 469 deals with forgery. If anyone creates a false document or fake account by which it harms the reputation of a person. The punishment of this offense can extend up to 3 years and a fine.

Section 503 of IPC deals with the offense of criminal intimidation by use of electronic means to damage one’s reputation in society.

Under the IT Act that is Information Technology Act, 2000
Section 66A, Information Technology Act,2000 – This law has been struck down by Supreme Court in the year 2015. The section defined punishment for sending ‘offensive’ messages through a computer, mobile, or tablet. Since the government did not clarify the word ‘offensive’. The government started using it as a tool to repress freedom of speech. In 2015, the whole section was quashed by the Supreme Court.

If a person has been defamed in cyberspace or any online site, he/she can launch a complaint to the cybercrime investigation cell which is a part of the Crime Investigation Department.

What kind of defamatory statements or publications are acceptable by courts in India?
According to, section 65A and 65B of the Indian Evidence Act:
Any electronic record printed on paper, or recorded, or copied in optical or magnetic media shall be considered as a document and it shall be accepted by the court.
Online chats are also permissible and acceptable by courts.
Electronic mails are also relevant, justifiable, and acceptable by courts.

Case laws:
Section 66A of Information & Technology Act 2000 (IT Act), was wiped out by the Supreme Court of India in the Shreya Singhal v. Union of India case due to vagueness in the meaning of the word 'offensive' in the section. The section says that sending any sort of offensive messages to a computer or any other technical device in which communication can be held, would be an offense. Such unrestricted power, under section 66A of the IT Act, was exploited by the Government in shortening and suppressing people's freedom of speech and expression and hence got repealed.

Amidst lockdown, when was entire nation was fighting against COVID-19, strange news had appeared from Delhi. The news was about a group known as the Bois Locker Room. The facts of the controversy are that a few guys in their 11th and 12th standards with a group named Bois Locker Room allegedly made certain remarks on minor girls which were sexist and objectified and tried to defame their identity. Some even went to the extent of discussing ra**ng those minor girls. As per the news reports, few of them have been arrested under 66A of the IT Act for cyberbullying and under section 499 of the Indian Penal Code.

, , , , ,

01/04/2021

Wife is better half,not a property;-
, , ,, , ,

01/04/2021

A woman accused of killing her husband cannot be given the custody of her minor daughter considering the welfare of the child, unless she is acquitted in the case.
, , ,
, , ,, , ,

31/03/2021

HIGH COURT OF HARYANA AND PUNJAB ALLOWED REGISTRATION OF MARRIAGE THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE.

The petitioners — Ami Ranjan and his wife Misha Verma — approached the court, filing the appeal against the judgment of a single judge of the High Court, whereby a writ petition, filed by the petitioners seeking quashing of the order issued by the Deputy Collector-cum-Marriage Officer, Gurugram, was dismissed. It was held that there was no provision for registration of the marriage under the Special Marriage Act, 1954 without the parties appearing in person before the marriage officer.

In the appeal it was submitted that the wife, a medical professional, was on COVID-19 emergency duty in the United States and that the husband wanted to go there to meet his wife, but for that he had to attach a marriage certificate along with an application for obtaining visa. In this backdrop, on account of lack of marriage certificate, the parties were facing unprecedented hardship.

The court, overruling the judgment of the single Bench that refused to permit registration of marriage through videoconferencing, observed the husband was not seeking complete exemption of appearance of his wife before the Registrar of Marriage. He was seeking that his wife be allowed to appear through videoconferencing, so that the marriage could be registered, it added.

“..In this case, presence of Misha Verma [wife] can be secured through video-conferencing and presence of husband Ami Ranjan and three witnesses can be marked by their appearance in the office of Registrar of Marriages. Then, the certificate of marriage can be issued on doing verification of facts as contemplated under Sections 15 and 16 of the Special Marriage Act. Once the marriage certificate is issued, it can be made part of the public record under Section 47 of the Act by entering it into the marriage certificate book. There shall be no violation of Section 47 of the Act,” said the court.
, , ,
, , ,, , ,

31/03/2021

Cyber Crime Alert :
, , ,

AG Law Firm

28/01/2022

10/09/2021

20/04/2021

14/04/2021

14/04/2021

09/04/2021

04/04/2021

01/04/2021

01/04/2021

31/03/2021

31/03/2021

Address

Opening Hours

Telephone

Website

Alerts

Contact The Practice

Shortcuts

Share

Category

Monday	9am - 5pm
Tuesday	9am - 5pm
Wednesday	9am - 5pm
Thursday	9am - 5pm
Friday	9am - 5pm