Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: March 31 – April 06, 2025

Nominal Index [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 221 – 227]XX v XX, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 221Martin Paul v State of Kerala and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 222Ajithkumar K. K. v State of Kerala and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 223Aisha P and Another v Bar Council of India and Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 224P. T. Jahangeer v State of Kerala and Another, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 225Nassar v Union of India and Another & Connected Cases, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 226M.I. Mohammed Versus M/S. Hll Life Care Ltd., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 227Judgments/ Orders This WeekHusband's Disinterest In Family Life Indicates Failure To Fulfill Marital Duties, Compelling Wife To Adopt Spiritual Lifestyle Is Cruelty: Kerala HCCase Title: XX vXXCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 221The Kerala High Court affirmed the decision of a Family Court granting divorce to a wife who alleged that her husband was not interested in having physical relations or children with her due to some superstitious beliefs.The division bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M. B. Snehalatha remarked that the husband's disinterest in family life indicates his failure to fulfil his marital duties.Kerala High Court Directs State To Implement Its Monthly Scholarship Scheme For Disabled Children; Highlights Indifference Of OfficersCase Title: Martin Paul v State of Kerala and AnotherCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 222The Kerala High Court has asked the State government to scrupulously implement its 2015 policy for persons with disabilities under which it had announced a Scheme for distribution of monthly scholarships to eligible students.The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Nitin Jamdar and Justice S. Manu also flagged the 'reluctance and apathy' of ground-level officers in implementing the Scheme and directed the State to take deterrent and punitive action against those found in default, including the Secretaries of the Local Self Government Institutions.Advocate Cannot Be Summoned As Witness And Be Compelled To Disclose Confidential Information Against Client : Kerala HCCase Title: Ajithkumar K. K. v State of Kerala and AnotherCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 223The Kerala High Court observed that police's power provided under Section 179(1) of BNSS cannot be stretched to call for an advocate–who is appearing for the accused in the crime–so as to divulge information shared between him and the client.In doing so Justice Kauser Edappagath observed that summoning an advocate representing his client potentially infringes the "client's right to representation and also violates the constitutional rights of the legal practitioners" besides impinging upon the stature of an advocate.Co-Opted Members Of Bar Council Cannot Be Considered As A Separate Class From Elected Members: Kerala HCCase Title: Aisha P and Another v Bar Council of India and OthersCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 224The Kerala High Court recently held that co-opted members of the Bar Council cannot be considered as a separate class from elected members.Justice C. S. Dias made this observation in a petition filed by 2 co-opted members of the Bar Council of Kerala (BCK) who challenged the decision of the Council to keep them away from its meeting after the Bar Council of India (BCI) extended the term of the BCK under Rule 32 of the Bar Council of India Certificate and Place of Practice (Verification) Rules 2015.Investigating Agency Cannot Include Cognizable Offence In FIR To Bypass Sanction U/S 155(2) Of CrPC: Kerala HCCase Title: P. T. Jahangeer v State of Kerala and AnotherCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 225The Kerala High Court observed that an investigating agency cannot incorporate a cognizable offence in the FIR without any materials before it to bypass Section 155(2) Cr.P.C.“The requirement of obtaining sanction under Section 155(2) CrPC for the investigation of a non-cognizable offence, cannot be bypassed by such shortcut methods of incorporating a cognizable offence in the FIR, even though there are apparently no materials before the investigating agency to register a case in connection with such an offence” observed Justice G. GirishUAPA | Kerala High Court Grants Bail To 10 PFI Members Allegedly Involved In RSS Leader Sreenivasan's MurderCase Title: Nassar v Union of India and Another & Connected CasesCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 226The Kerala High Court on Wednesday (2nd April) granted bail to 10 PFI members allegedly involved in the murder of RSS leader in Palakkad, S. K. Sreenivasan.The Division Bench of Justice Raja Vijayaraghavan V. and Justice P. V. Balakrishnan granted bail to 8 of them namely Nassar, Jamsheer H., Abdul Basith, Muhammed Shefeek K., Ashraf K., Jishad B., Ashraf aka Ashraf Moulavi, Sirajudheen after taking into account the long period of incarceration already undergone by them and the lack of direct evidence against them.After Commencement Of Arbitration, Parties Must Wait Until Award Is Pronounced To File Challenge Unless Appeal Is Available At Earlier Stage: Kerala HCCase Title: M.I. Mohammed...

Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: March 31 – April 06, 2025

Manju Elsa Isac

Tags