S.125 CrPC | Muslim Woman Can Claim Maintenance After Divorce Unless Husband Makes Fair Provision For Her Future: Patna High Court

The Patna High Court has ruled that a Muslim woman can claim maintenance under Section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC) even after divorce, if her husband has not made a “reasonable and fair provision” for her future during the iddat period. Justice Jitendra Kumar upheld a Family Court order directing a Muslim man to pay his wife ₹7,000 per month, dismissing his plea that...

Orissa High Court Dismisses Challenge To Debarment Of Govt Teachers From Acting As Registrars Of Muslim Marriages

The Orissa High Court has dismissed a batch of writ petitions challenging the decision of the State Government to revoke/rescind the licenses issued in favour of serving teachers of government/aided schools to act as Registrars of Muslim marriages and divorces.Justice Dixit Krishna Shripad was apprehensive about feasibility on the part of such teachers to give “absolute commitment”...

Once Actual Movement Of Goods Proved By Assessee Remains Unrebutted, Proceedings U/S 74 GST Act Are Unjustified: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has recently held that when the actual movement of goods has been proved by the assesee and the same remains unrebutted by the authority, proceedings under Section 74 of Goods and Service Tax Act, 2017 are unjustified. Proceedings under Section 74 of GST Act can be initiated if an assesee has not paid or short paid or erroneously refunded or input tax...

Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: September 8 - September 14, 2025

Nominal Index [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 544 - 564]Karuvangadan Mukthar @ Muthu v. The Superintendent and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 544Harrisons Malayalam Limited v State of Kerala and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 545Askaf v. Sub Inspector of Police, Sulthan Bathery and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 546XX v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 547M.C. Kamarudheen v. State of Kerala and connected...

Magistrate Not Empowered To Take Recognisance Of Offence U/S 358 BNSS: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that Section 358 of the Bhartiya Nagarika Suraksha Sanhita (~319 CrPC) does not empower a Magistrate to take re-cognisance of an offence.Section 358 BNSS empowers the Court to issue a summons to any person who is not an accused, but appears to be guilty of an offence from the evidence.However, Justice Amit Mahajan has clarified that the provision can...

Right Of Appeal Is Not A Fundamental Right, Legislature Can Designate Appellate Forum Based On Offence: Bombay High Court

The Bombay High Court has held that the right to appeal is a statutory right and not a fundamental, and thus the legislature can decide the appellate forum based on the subject matter of offences."As to the contention that the accused loses one appellate forum, this Court finds it without merit. The right of appeal is not a fundamental right; it is purely a statutory right created by...

Rajasthan High Court Monthly Digest: August 2025

Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 257 To 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 291NOMINAL INDEXOrders/Judgments of the MonthSohan Singh v Rajkidevi & Ors.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 257Manni Devi v Rama Devi & Ors.; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 258Ram Kishan v Ram Dai & Ors.; 2025 Live Law (Raj) 259Raisuddin v State of Rajasthan, and other connected matters; 2025 LiveLaw (Raj) 260Chandra Kant Ramawat v State of...

Plaintiff Has No Vested Right To File Replication Under CPC: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has made it clear that filing of replication by a Plaintiff is only judicially sanctioned and is not a statutory right of the party.Replication, also known as rejoinder, is filed by the Plaintiff in response to the defendant's written statement in a civil suit— to clarify its stand or rebut the defendant's claims.Justice Girish Kathpalia held,“Civil Procedure Code...

Usage Of Disputed Trademark Even After Filing Of Challenge Would Cause Serious Confusion To Public: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court division bench of Justice Prathiba M. Singh and Justice Shail Jain, while hearing a Section 37(1)(b) appeal under the Arbitration Act, observed that using the subject brand names after a dispute between the parties can cause enormous confusion to the public. People may associate the Respondent's outlets with the Appellants. Factual Matrix: The parties...

Writ Court Interfering With Every Procedural Order In Arbitral Proceedings Is Contrary To Aim Of A&C Act: Gujarat HC

The Gujarat High Court while dismissing a writ petition filed under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution observed that the Writ Court can exercise their power only in cases where the only if the order in questions is “completely perverse”, or the order in questions is crippled with “bad faith” or the order in questions falls in the category of “rarest of rare...

Surprise Searches Can Be Conducted On Family's Lockers U/S 132 Of Income Tax Act Over Suspicion Of Undisclosed Assets: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has upheld the surprise search and seizure conducted by the Income Tax Department at the private lockers maintained by a family at South Delhi Vaults, without issuance of prior notice or summons to them.The family claimed that failure to notify them was a flagrant violation of Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which relates to 'Search and seizure'.Section...

Delhi High Court Monthly Digest: August 2025 [Citations 909 - 1049]

Citations 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 909 to 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1049NOMINAL INDEXVikas Garg v. Zee Media Corporation Ltd & Ors. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 909 RAJESH GAMBHIR v. STATE GNCT OF DELHI AND ANR 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 910 PJ v. PJ 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 911 MMTC LIMITED versus Ms. ANGLO-AMERICAN METALLURGICAL PTY LIMITED AND ORS. 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 912 RAMESH KUMAR JAYASWAL v. CBI 2025 LiveLaw...