Rajasthan High Court Weekly Round-Up: May 18 to May 24, 2026

NOMINAL INDEX [Citations 185 - 201]Laxmilal v Parwati; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 185KB v SK; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 187Apoorva Agrawat v State of RajasthanPrashant Kaushik & Ors. v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 189Devesh Sharma v State of Rajasthan & Anr.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 190Hari Ram v Chunni Devi; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 191Lal Singh Chouhan v State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 192Jhabra Ram v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 193LRs of Mahaveer Singh & Ors. v Narendra Singh & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 194Rakesh Sharma v Manju Devi & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 195Suo Motu: In RE: Acute Water Crisis in Jodhpur City and Deteriorating Condition of Ancient Water SourcesGopiram & Ors. v the Ajmer Vodyut Vitran Nigam Ltd.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 196Nurul Islam & Anr. v State of Rajasthan; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 197Ramji Lal Saini v the State of Rajasthan & Ors.; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 199Bhawani Singh Shekhawat v Fanishwar Sharma; 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 201Order/Judgments of the WeekCustomary 'Nata Marriage' During Subsistence Of First Marriage No Defence To Bigamy Under Hindu Marriage Act: Rajasthan High CourtTitle: Laxmilal v ParwatiCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 185The Rajasthan High Court has held that customary “Nata Marriage” cannot be accorded legal recognition as a valid defense to the charge of bigamy, since doing so shall render the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (“the Act”), meaningless, absurd and virtually repealed owing to judicial tolerance of the custom.For context, Nata Marriage was a custom prevalent in certain communities of Rajasthan where a person enters into second matrimonial union without legally dissolving the first marriage. The division bench of Justice Arun Monga and Justice Sandeep Shah opined that this custom disproportionately harms women and results in vulnerability of both the sets of women.“A Court of law is not an instrument available to a wrongdoer to consecrate his wrong. The appellant, having made his choice in 1997 with open eyes and without legal authority, must bear its consequences, and those consequences cannot, in law or in conscience, be visited upon the respondent.”Economic Dependence, Social Pressure Keeping Wife In Matrimonial Home Can't Negate Cruelty; Endurance Is Not Consent: Rajasthan High CourtTitle: KB v SKCitation: 2026 LiveLaw (Raj) 187The Rajasthan High Court has observed that many women continue to remain in difficult marriages out of economic dependence, social pressure, children, lack of shelter, fear of stigma or absence of parental support. Thus, mere fact that spouses reside together for some years does not automatically negate allegations of cruelty.The division bench of Justice Arun Monga and Justice Sunil Beniwal observed that shared physical resident does not equate to harmonious cohabitation, rather at times, it represents a period of forced endurance under adverse conditions.“A wife staying because she has “nowhere else to go” cannot be treated as proof that no cruelty existed. Endurance is often mistaken for consent and/or condonation.”“Cruelty, particularly mental cruelty, is not confined to dramatic physical acts; it encompasses all forms of conduct, subtle or overt, which make continued cohabitation unbearable. The learned Family court has given undue weight to the fact of co-residence, rather appears to have maximized its import against the appellant, while minimizing the psychological damage inflicted upon the appellant by the refusal of her basic rights within the matrimonial home.”Rajasthan High Court Halts Construction, Mining In Jawai To Protect Leopard Habitat; Asks State To Consider Declaring Area As SanctuaryTitle: Apoorva Agrawat v State of RajasthanWhile hearing PIL claiming unregulated tourism and increased "unauthorized construction" in Jawai region causing ecological stress and disturbance to wildlife particularly Indian leopards, Rajasthan High Court has directed that no construction in the region will take place except with court's permission.In March the court had in an interim order prohibited safari activities beyond 6 am to 7 pm.The division bench of Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Sandeep Shah has further directed to maintain the status quo regarding all commercial tourism establishments or any kind of constructions in the regions. Any further tourism license for hotels/resorts/guest houses etc. has been prohibited."This order which will be operate in the whole Jawai region which includes Villages of Kothar, Velar, Varaval, Lundara, Doodni, Choti Doodni, Rughnathpura, Mori, Mori Bera, Sena, Jeevda, Beesalpur, Balwana, Jawai Bandh Station, Perwa, and other area within the Jawai Leopard Conservation Reserve 1 & 2 which were formed by notification dated 27.02.2013 and 15.06.2018 respectively. Also included would be, all the caves in the area, hills, foot hills corridors in the Jawai region and District Pali which are part of leopards movement and leopards habitat.”The Court gave interim directions to the State, and he...

Rajasthan High Court Weekly Round-Up: May 18 to May 24, 2026

Nupur Agrawal

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

Rajasthan High Court Weekly Round-Up: May 18 to May 24, 2026

Nupur Agrawal

This is a premium content Available exclusively to Our subscribers

INR 1099+GST

Tags

This is a premium content
Available exclusively to
Our subscribers