Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 27 - November 02, 2025

Nominal Index [Citations: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 681- 700]XXX v YYY, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 681Muhammed Ashar K. v. Muhsina P.K., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 682XXX v YYY, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 683 Hirandas V.M. v. State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 684Ranjith Balakrishnan v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 685Geofin Comtrade Limited v. Asst. CIT, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 686 P V Mathew v State, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 687M/S Thiruvonam Industries and Others v Hero Fincorp Ltd, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 688Moosa Thiruvangoth v State of Kerala, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 689Sterling Farm Research and Services Pvt. Ltd. v. The Commissioner of Income Tax, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 690V Chandran v Aliamma George, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 691Asha Lawrence v State of Kerala and Ors and connected matter, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 692Pas Agro Foods v. KRBL Limited and Ors., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 693Usman Kunju and Anr. v. State of Kerala and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 694State of Kerala v. Subramanian Namboothiri and Anr., 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 695Harish V. v. T.C. Mathew and connected cases, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 696Kerala High Court Advocates Association (KHCAA) v. State of Kerala & Others, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 697N M Taha v Kerala State Election Commission and Anr and connected case, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 698Parimal Sahu and connected case, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 699Vellangallur Peoples Welfare Co-operative Society Ltd. and Anr v Union of India and Ors. and connected case, 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 700Judgments/ Order This Week'If She Really Is An Advocate, It's Alarming': Kerala High Court Slams Woman For Misconduct, Casting Aspersions On JudgesCase Title: XXX v YYYCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 681The Kerala High Court has reprimanded a litigant claiming to be an advocate–who appeared in person to challenge her divorce decree–for her (mis)conduct in Court.The Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M B Snehalatha was hearing the petitioner's plea seeking to invalidate a divorce decree and judgment of Family Court Ernakulam.Return Of 'Mahar' Can Be Ascertained From Statement Of Parties, Not Merely From 'Khula Nama': Kerala High CourtCase Title: Muhammed Ashar K. v. Muhsina P.K.Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 682The Kerala High Court has recently clarified that return of 'mahar' (consideration given by husband to wife in marriage) can be ascertained not just from the 'Khula Nama' but also from the statement of parties while considering a Muslim wife's petition for declaration of divorce by 'khula'.The Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha was considering an appeal preferred by the husband challenging the divorce granted by the Family Court.Suspicious Husband Can Turn Matrimonial Life Into Living Hell: Kerala High Court Grants Divorce To Woman Suspected Of InfidelityCase Title : XXX v YYYCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 683While granting divorce to a woman, the Kerala High Court observed that an unfounded suspicion of a husband amounts to a serious form of cruelty.The Division Bench comprising Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha was delivering the judgment in a matrimonial appeal filed by the wife against the decision of Family Court, Kottayam which declined the relief of divorce sought by her under Section 10(1)(x) of the Divorce Act.Kerala High Court Eases Bail Conditions Imposed On Rapper Vedan In Sexual Harassment Case, Paves Way For International TourCase Title: Hirandas V.M. v. State of KeralaCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 684The Kerala High Court on Thursday (October 30) modified two bail conditions imposed by the Sessions Court on Rapper Vedan, while granting him anticipatory bail in a sexual harassment case.Justice C. Pratheep Kumar deleted the conditions requiring the rapper to not leave Kerala and to appear before the Investigating Officer on every Sunday.Magistrate Could Not Have Taken Cognizance After 15 Yrs: Kerala High Court Quashes Outraging Modesty Case Against Film Director RanjithCase Title: Ranjith Balakrishnan v State of KeralaCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 685The Kerala High Court has quashed the proceedings against Malayalam film director Ranjith in an FIR alleging that he tried to outrage the modesty of an actress by inappropriately holding her hand and attempted to touch her body with sexual intent.The FIR was registered against the Director under IPC Sections 354 (Assault or criminal force to Woman with intent to outrage her modesty) and 509 (Word, gesture or act intended to insult the modesty of a woman).Justice C Pratheep Kumar, allowed the petition to quash the proceedings presently pending before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate Court, Ernakulam.S.36(1)(vii) Income Tax Act | Closing Individual Debtor Accounts Not Mandatory For Bad Debt Deduction: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Geofin Comtrade Limited v. Asst. CITCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 686The Kerala High Court stated that closing individual debtor accounts is not mandatory for bad debt deduction under Section 36(1)(vii) of the Income Tax Act,...

Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: October 27 - November 02, 2025

Anamika MJ

Tags