Punjab & Haryana High Court Quarterly Digest [July-September 2025]

Wife Can't Be Denied Maintenance Merely Because She Is A Graduate: Punjab & Haryana High CourtTitle: AXXXXX v. XXXXXXCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 261The Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that a wife cannot be denied maintenance merely because she is a graduate and capable of earning, especially when she is not gainfully employed.Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri said, "mere fact that the respondent/wife is a graduate would not itself mean that she can be denied of the Right of Maintenance which is conferred upon her by way of a statutory provision unless the right to seek maintenance can be curtailed under the grounds which have been mentioned under Section 125 Cr.P.C. or when her income is so high as compared to the husband and it can be found that she is able to maintain herself, then in that situation she may not be entitled for grant of maintenance."P&H High Court Closes PIL Against Use Of 'Chinese Dor' To Fly Kites, Notes Steps Taken By State To Curb Use & Reward InformersTitle: Kanwar Pahul Singh v. State of Punjab and othersCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 262Observing that the Punjab Government authorities had already initiated steps, including penalties and rewards for informers reporting incidents of death by use of banned Chinese Dor, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has disposed of the second PIL filed to curb the menace.A division bench of Chief Justice Sheel Nagu and Justice Sumeet Goel noted, "it is obvious that steps have already been taken by the concerned authorities by prescribing penalty as well as announcing a reward upto Rs. 25,000/- for informer, informing about an incident of injury or death due to use of Chinese Dor."Husband Has 'Duty To Earn More' To Pay Maintenance To Wife, Children If He Is Unable To Afford: Punjab & Haryana High CourtTitle: XXXX v. XXXXXCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 263The Punjab & Haryana High Court has said that if the husband is not able to earn the maintenance amount, it is his duty to earn more to pay the maintenance amount to wife and children.The Court dismissed the husband's plea challenging the Family Court's maintenance order of ₹24,700 for his wife and two minor children, on the ground that he had other liabilities which made him unable to afford it.Immaterial Whether Appellate Authority Under Air Or Water Act Has Expert Member After Formation Of NGT: Punjab & Haryana High CourtTitle: Sunil v. State of Haryana and othersCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 264The Punjab & Haryana High Court has said that the absence of an Expert Member as part of the Appellate Authority under the Haryana Air and Water Act does not occasion any disadvantage to the person aggrieved approaching the Authority after the National Green Tribunal (NGT) has come into force.The Court dismissed the plea challenging the notification issued by the Haryana Government amending the Haryana (Prevention and Control of Water Pollution) Rules, 1978 (Water Act) and the Haryana Air (Prevention and Control of Pollution) Rules, 1983 (Air Act), providing a single-member Appellate Authority.Cyber Crime Threatens 'Digital Bharat', Factors Like Gravity Of Offence Must Be Evaluated Before Granting Bail: P&H High CourtTitle: Suhail v. State of HaryanaCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 265The Punjab & Haryana High Court has said that while adjudicating the bail pleas, in cases concerning cybercrimes and online fraud, necessitates a "meticulous evaluation of several pivotal factors" and warrants a heightened degree of judicial circumspection.The Court made the observations while rejecting an accused's anticipatory bail plea after finding a prima facie case against him in cyber crime involving Rs.25 lakhs.The Punjab & Haryana High Court has said that while adjudicating the bail pleas, in cases concerning cybercrimes and online fraud, necessitates a "meticulous evaluation of several pivotal factors" and warrants a heightened degree of judicial circumspection.The Court made the observations while rejecting an accused's anticipatory bail plea after finding a prima facie case against him in cyber crime involving Rs.25 lakhs.S.210(1)(c) BNSS| Court Not Obligated To Record Witness Statement Or Call Aggrieved Party To Take Cognizance Of Offence: P&H High CourtTitle: Navpreet Singh and others v. State of PunjabCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (PH) 266The Punjab & Haryana High Court has clarified that under Section 210(1)(c) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), a Magistrate is not obligated to record the statement of any witness or call the aggrieved party before taking cognizance of an offence or issuing process.For context, Section 210(c) BNSS states that the Magistrate can take cognizance of offence upon information received from any person other than a police officer, or upon his own knowledge, that such offence has been committed.Alarming Shift In Drug Abuse Towards Potent Substance, Cases Involving Manufactured Drug Must Be Dealt With Strictness: P&H High CourtHarpreet Singh @ Hira vs. State of PunjabCitation: 2025 LiveLaw ...

Punjab & Haryana High Court Quarterly Digest [July-September 2025]

LIVELAW NEWS NETWORK

Tags