Free Call +91 9540652090
Call Us Now For Support
4L-902, AWHO Township, Gurjinder Vihar, Greater Noida - 201310
Today, Supreme Court unanimously pronounced that the Right to Privacy is an unenumerated Fundamental Right embedded in Article 21 and other fundamental freedoms contained in Part III of the Constitution of India, furthermore, SC overruled the verdicts passed in M.P Sharma and Kharak Singh, whereby the court ruled against the existence of privacy as fundamental right. Apart from the aforesaid, Supreme Court also ceremoniously overruled the ADM Jabalpur’s majority view and upheld the minority view although the same had been implicitly countermand by 44th constitutional amendment. Moreover, through today’s pronouncement SC deprecate it’s finding and decision in Suresh Koushal’s judgment in which SC upheld the constitutionality of Section 377 IPC. As no right can be absolute in nature, therefore Supreme Court stipulate two limitations on the newly recognized right by which it can be restricted, firstly, a just, fair and reasonable basis as per Article 21; Secondly, the amorphous stand.
The Karnataka High Court has recently held that any person, whether male or female, aggrieved and alleging violation of the provisions of the Domestic Violence Act, can invoke the provisions under the Act. Justice Anand Byrareddy was hearing a peti... Justice Anand Byrareddy was hearing a petition filed by Mohammed Zakir against dismissal of his complaint filed under the Domestic Violence Act against his wife and her relatives by Addl. City Civil Court, Bangalore. The civil judge was not impresse... he civil judge was not impressed with the complaint, as the Act clearly is loaded in favour of women only and it does not contemplate any male person being aggrieved by domestic violence.... The high court observed that it is to be noticed that the said issue was subject matter of an appeal before the apex court in the case of Hiral P Harsora vs Kusum Narottamdas Harsora, wherein the Supreme Court has struck down a portion of Section 2(a... on the ground that it is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution and the phrase “adult male” as appearing in Section 2(q) stood deleted.... “If the said sub-section is read after deleting the expression ‘adult male’, it would appear that any person, whether male or female, aggrieved and alleging violation of the provisions of the Act could invoke the provisions under the Act. n that view of the matter, the petitioner’s complaint could not have been trashed on the ground that the Act does not contemplate provision for men and it could only be in respect of women,” the court said....
Is Bigamy an offence in India- In India, bigamy is an offence against marriage and it is also criminal offence under Indian Penal laws. The bigamy law applicable to Hindus, Jains, Buddhists ,Sikhs,Parsis,Christians [except Muslims]. Bigamy is one of the ground to seek divorce under Hindu Marriage Act 1955.The second wife is entitlement for maintenance ,she is not entitle for property rights. In August 2009, the Law Commission of India recommended that bigamy should be made a cognizable offence. The Law Commission of India said in its 227th report to the government “Muslim law on bigamy is gravely faulty and conflicts with true Islamic law in letter and spirit,'', the unanimous view of chairman Justice A R Lakshmanan and members Tahir Mahmood and B A Agrawal. “Bigamy is not very common among Muslims and cases of men having more than one wife at a time are few and far between” said commission. The practice of second wife more prevalent in Hindus in India as per statistics and some people regard it as status symbol, The Tamil Nadu C.M ,M Karunanidhi is good example of bigamous marriage. What are ingridents of Section 494, Indian Penal code 1860, Bigamy Marrying again during lifetime of husband or wife: Whoever, having a husband or wife living, marries in any case in which such marriage is void by reason of its taking place during the life of such husband or wife, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine. Exception-This section does not extend to any person whose marriage with such husband or wife has been declare void by a Court of competent jurisdiction ,nor to any person who contracts a marriage during the life of a former husband or wife, if such husband or wife, at the time of the subsequent marriage, shall have been continually absent from such person for the space of seven years, and shall not have been heard of by such person as being alive within
Section 24 entitles not only the wife but also the husband to claim maintenance pendente lite on showing that he has no independent source of income. However, the husband will have to satisfy the court that either due to physical or mental disability he is handicapped to earn and support his livelihood. Held that since the husband was able-bodied and was not mentally ill and only because his business had closed down, he could not be granted any maintenance, it being opposed to spirit of section 24 of the Act; Kanchan v. Kamalendra, AIR 1993 Bom 493.