Latest News Factors to be considered for grant of maintenance u/s.125 Cr.P.C. This case dealt with quantum of maintenance awarded to the wife which was under challenge by the husband. The Delhi High Court held – “For granting the maintenance under Section 125 Cr.P.C., essentially two factors have to be considered. Firstly, that the wife has not deserted the husband without any reasonable cause; and Secondly, determination of quantum of maintenance, depending upon the circumstances and working capacity of both the parties.” The Delhi High Court observed that nothing had been brought on record to show that the Respondent-wife had separated without any reason or had deserted the Petitioner-husband and upheld the decision of the family court that the Petitioner-husband had failed to prove that the wife was living separately without any sufficient cause. The Court further held – “The maintenance amount must be determined in a balanced manner; it should be one that ensures adequate support for the wife and child, while also taking into account the Petitioner’s financial obligations of his lability towards Home Loan, his expenses and responsibility towards parents.” The quantum of maintenance was reduced. ANKUSH KUMAR PARASHAR v. SAPNA @ MONA & ANR., Delhi High Court Decision – 29 August 2025.

Latest News Call Detail Records and Mobile Location of Spouse can be sought to ascertain adultery In Matrimonial Disputes. Four connected Appeals assailing different parts of a common interlocutory Order passed on 29th April 2025 by a Family Court came to be filed before the Delhi High Court. The appeals arose out of a matrimonial dispute which also involved impleadment of an alleged paramour as a party to the proceedings. On impleadment of the alleged paramour, the Delhi High Court held –“Section 13(1)(i) of the HMA recognises adultery as a distinct ground for divorce. The procedural framework governing such petitions requires that full particulars of the alleged matrimonial offence be furnished, including the identity of the person alleged to be involved. Courts have consistently required impleadment of such person to ensure fairness in adjudication… the Family Court cannot effectively or fairly adjudicate the ground of adultery without the presence of the alleged participant. This legislative mandate also underscores a policy choice that allegations of adultery, by their very nature, touch upon the reputation and dignity of a third party, and therefore justice requires that such person be given a fair opportunity to defend themselves.” On The Court further held           “In matrimonial disputes where adultery is alleged, courts have consistently held that proof may often be circumstantial, and that evidence of association, stay at hotels, or patterns of communication may constitute relevant circumstances. CDRs [Call Detail Records] and tower location data, if appropriately circumscribed to a defined period, serve as corroborative material to either establish or negate the charge of adulterous association. Such material cannot, therefore, be dismissed as a roving enquiry; it is directly relevant to the issue in controversy.” On production of documents u/Order XI Rule 14 CPC, the Delhi High Court held –“The scope of discovery under this provision is wide but not unlimited. Courts have consistently held that discovery is intended to facilitate fair trial and enable parties to substantiate their claims or defenses. It cannot, however, be used as a vehicle to compel production of irrelevant or extraneous material. The exercise must be guided by relevance to the matters in issue, and the applicant must demonstrate a prima facie link between the requested documents and the claim or defense… In exercising discretion, the Court must balance the right to evidence with the need to protect parties from undue burden or intrusion into private matters not relevant to the issues in dispute. The Court is not bound to grant all requests automatically; it may narrow or refuse requests which are irrelevant, speculative, or disproportionate.” The Delhi High Court upheld the family court’s decision rejecting the application of the alleged paramour for deletion of the name from the array of parties holding that impleadment is both statutorily mandated and necessary to uphold the principles of natural justice. The High Court upheld the decision of the family court allowing the Wife‘s application for production of the Husband‘s CDRs and tower location data of both the Husband and alleged paramour for a specific period holding that the directions were proportionate, directly connected to the pleadings, and were to be complied with under confidentiality safeguards in sealed covers. The decision of the family court allowing production of certain documents was upheld while rejecting some of the others (financial records and hotel details) was set aside. SMITA SHRIVASTAVA v. SUMIT VERMA & ANR., Delhi High Court Decision: – 29 August 2025.

Latest News A 5-judge Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court is hearing the Presidential Reference by President Droupadi Murmu on 14 questions on the power to assent on Bills, including whether a court can fix timelines for the President/Governor to decide on Bills. The Constitution Bench comprises of the Chief Justice of India, H.M.J. Surya Kant, H.M.J. Vikram Nath, H.M.J. P.S. Narasimha and H.M.J. Atul S. Chandurkar. The Presidential Reference, made under Article 143, came a month after the Supreme Court’s judgment in the Tamil Nadu Governor matter, wherein the Court held that the Governor did not act bona fide in reserving Bills to President. The Constitution Bench commenced the hearing on 19th August, 2025 hearing first the preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the Reference. The Union of India and the parties supporting the stand of Union of India will be heard on 19, 20, 21 and 26 August, 2025. The parties opposing the Reference will be heard on 28 August and 2, 3 & 9 September, 2025. Rejoinder arguments on behalf of the Union of India would be heard on 10 September, 2025. IN RE: ASSENT, WITHHOLDING OR RESERVATION OF BILLS BY THE GOVERNOR AND THE PRESIDENT OF INDIA, SPL.REF. No. 1/2025.

Latest News A 2-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court was called upon to decide: “Whether every allegation or accusation levelled, a reprimand or rebuke made, an insinuation or insult voiced or even continuous acts of ill-treatment, harassment and defamation; as alleged in this case, would lead to a charge of abetment, if the person at the receiving end commits suicide, is a vexed question the Courts are called upon to decide when a charge is raised under Section 306 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860” now s.108 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023. A 7-time MP committed suicide in February 2021 leaving behind a suicide note which named persons in the administration and police, who according to him, conspired to defame, degrade and demean him so as to end his political career and bring down his social standing, thus driving him to suicide; which he proclaimed in his last note, was his only option. The accused, named in the suicide note, filed separate applications to quash the FIR, u/s.482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. The petitions were allowed by the Bombay High Court by a common order, against which the appeals were filed before the Supreme Court. The Bench held that “…even if there is allegation of constant harassment, continued over a long period; to bring in the ingredients of Section 306 read with Section 107, still there has to be a proximate prior act to clearly find that the suicide was the direct consequence of such continuous harassment, the last proximate incident having finally driven the subject to the extreme act of taking one’s life… The real intention of the accused and whether he intended by his action to at least possibly drive the victim to suicide, is the sure test.”. The Bench noted the complaints made, the statements recorded, the suicide note; over which there was a cloud, and the subsequent conduct of the police regarding the delay in registering a crime and the casual statements made in the FIR and dismissed the appeals holding that the allegations levelled were not the direct causation of the death. ABHINAV MOHAN DELKAR v. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS., Crl. Appeal Nos.2177-2185/2024, Date of Decision: 18 August 2025.

Latest News A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court has held that a Memorandum of Family Settlement “does not require registration because neither any new right is sought to be created nor extinguished, only the manner of enjoyment of suit property has been delineated, which does not result in the creation of any right”. The Bench further held that “Modification, novation and alteration of a contract is regulated by Section 62 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Its first requirement is that the parties to the contract agree to substitute a new contract… The second requirement is that there should be an intention to substitute the previous contract with a new contract…”. It was observed that once the respective shares of the family members were identified by a memorandum of family settlement, a Builders’ Agreement entered into for construction of a building, will not result in its modification or novation. The appeals was dismissed. SUMAN SINGH VIRK & ANR. v. DEEPIKA PRASHAR & ANR., RFA(OS) 61/2024, Date of Decision: 18 August 2025.

Latest News A 2-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court taking suo moto cognizance of a disturbing and alarming Newspaper cutting reported by the `Times of India’ titled “City Hounded By Strays, Kids Pay Price”, passed directions to immediately start picking up stray dogs from all localities and shift them to dog shelters. The Bench further said that not a single stray dog was to be released. The Bench warned that any individual or organisation obstructing the authorities from picking up stray dogs, would face legal consequences. The directions also extend to the NCR region. The Supreme Court Bench clarified that authorities can use force if it was necessary to pick up the strays. The State of NCT of Delhi, MCD and NDMC have been directed to immediately make dog shelters and report about the creation of infrastructure within 8 weeks. IN RE: “CITY HOUNDED BY STRAYS, KIDS PAY PRICE”, SMW (C) No.5/2025.

Latest News A 2-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court struck down a policy of the Indian Army to reserve posts in the Judge Advocate General (JAG) branch for men and restricting the number of women who can be appointed to JAG posts. The Bench held that “The practice of fixing a ceiling limit to recruitment of female candidates has the effect of perpetuating the status quo, which has been historically discriminatory to women candidates. The result of such practice is confinement of women candidates, irrespective of their performance/merit, in their gendered category, thereby being destructive of not just the Constitutional scheme under Articles 15 and 16 as noted hereinabove, but also of the concept of ‘gender-neutrality’ and ‘merit’.”. The Bench held that the executive cannot restrict the numbers of women candidates and/or make a reservation for male officers under the guise of ‘extent of induction’ by way of a policy or administrative instruction and further that the true meaning of gender-neutrality was that all meritorious candidates, irrespective of sex/gender, should be selected. ARSHNOOR KAUR v. UNION OF INDIA, W.P.(C) No. 772/2023, Date of Decision: 11 August 2025.

Latest News A 2-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court summarised the principles related to s.92 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) and explained the circumstances when a registered society can be construed as a ‘constructive trust’ so as to maintain a suit under s.92 against it. The Bench was tasked with determining whether a constructive trust could be created in a circumstance wherein a society vests its property in its governing body through the deeming fiction employed under s.5 of the Societies Registration Act, 1860. The Bench held – “A suit under Section 92 of the CPC is a representative suit of a special nature since the action is instituted on behalf of the public beneficiaries and in public interest”. The Bench reiterated the conditions or essential pre-requisites to be fulfilled for the applicability of s.92 CPC – “(a) the trust in question must be created for public purposes of a charitable or religious nature; (b) there must exist a breach of trust or a direction of the court must be necessary for the administration of the trust; and (c) the relief claimed must be one or other of the reliefs as enumerated under Section 92(1) of the CPC”. The Bench held that the method of devolution of the property to the institution or its acquisition, the intention behind the grant of property i.e. for the benefit of the organization or for the personal benefit of any particular individual/family i.e. the historical setting and circumstances of the grant are to be considered while concluding whether a trust of a public charitable or religious nature exists. The Bench further held that the institution of the suit must be made by two or more persons “having an interest in the trust” i.e. the interest must denote a present and substantial interest and not a sentimental, remote, fictitious or purely illusory interest. It must be clear and direct. The list of reliefs in s.92(1) relate to removing a trustee, appointing a new trustee, vesting any property in a trustee, directing accounts and inquiries, declaring what proportion of the trust property or of the interest therein shall be allocated to any particular object of the trust, authorising the whole or any part of the trust property to be let, sold, mortgaged, or exchanged, settling a scheme, or granting such further or other reliefs as the nature of the case may require. The detailed judgment can be read at 47882_2024_8_1502_63019_Judgement_05-Aug-2025.pdf. OPERATION ASHA v. SHELLY BATRA & ORS., CIVIL APPEAL NO. 10048 OF 2025, Date of Decision: 5 August 2025.

Latest News A 2-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court has ruled that This case dealt with unnatural/suicide death of a student. The Supreme Court reiterated the settled principle of law that “the power to transfer the investigation of a criminal case to the CBI is an extraordinary measure, which must be exercised with great caution, and only in rare and exceptional circumstances” and transferred the investigation to the CBI. The judgment is structured in two parts – Part A : factual circumstances and Part B : immediate interim guidelines. The Supreme Court held, “Mental health is an integral component of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.” And laid down 15 guidelines “which shall remain in force and be binding until such time as appropriate legislation or regulatory frameworks are enacted by the competent authority”. The guidelines apply to all educational institutions across India, including public and private schools, colleges, universities, training centres, coaching institutes, residential academies, and hostels, irrespective of their affiliation. The judgment can be read here judgment-184892024-25-07-2025-612080.pdf ANURAG BHATNAGAR & ANR. v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR., SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.18084 OF 2024, Date of Decision: 25 July 2025.

Latest News In this case, the informant did not approach the officer-in-charge of the police station nor the Superintendent of Police concerned as contemplated u/ss. 154(1) and 154(3) of the CrPC but directly went to the Magistrate u/s.156(3). The Supreme Court declined to interfere on the ground that though the Magistrate ought not to ordinarily entertain an application u/s.156(3) CrPC directly unless the informant has availed and exhausted his remedies u/s.154(3), but as the Magistrate is otherwise competent u/s.156(3) to direct registration of an FIR if the allegations in the application/complaint disclose the commission of a cognizable offence, the order so passed by the Magistrate would not be without jurisdiction and would not stand vitiated on this count. A 2-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court held, “It is a settled law that one of the modes for setting criminal law into motion is by giving information to the police authorities in accordance with Section 154 CrPC whereupon if a cognizable offence is prima facie made out to the satisfaction of the police, it may investigate into the offence even without the permission of the Magistrate. The information so given is ordinarily called the “First Information”, though this terminology has not been used under the CrPC.”. It was further held, “On a conspicuous reading of the provisions of Sections 154, 156 and 190 of the CrPC together, it is crystal clear that an informant who wants to report about a commission of a cognizable offence has to, in the first instance, approach the officer-in-charge of the police station for setting the criminal law into motion by lodging an FIR. However, if such an information is not accepted by the officer-in-charge of the police station and he refuses to record it, the remedy of the informant is to approach the Superintendent of Police concerned. It is only subsequent to availing the above opportunities if he is not successful, he may approach the Magistrate under Section 156(3) 15 CrPC for necessary action or of taking cognizance in accordance with Section 190 of the CrPC.” The Bench also held that the person aggrieved must first exhaust the alternative remedies available to him in law before approaching the court of law, he cannot ordinarily approach the court directly. ANURAG BHATNAGAR & ANR. v. STATE (NCT OF DELHI) & ANR., SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO.18084 OF 2024, Date of Decision: 25 July 2025.