J&K&L High Court Weekly Round Up: September 5 To September 11, 2022

Nominal Index [Citations 137 - 148]:Mohammad Ali Bhat Vs Shafeeqa Bano & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 137Manzoor Ahmad Lone Vs UT of J&K & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 138Showkat Aziz Zargar Vs Nabeel Showkat & Another 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 139Vijay Gupta & Ors Vs Deeksha Sharma & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 140Abdul Bari Naik v. State of J&K and others 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 141BHARTI AIRTEL LIMITED COMPANY & ORS v MALIK MUSHTAQ 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 142Symbiosis Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd Vs State of J&K 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 143UT Of J&K Vs Javid Ahmad Shah 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 144Ashok Kumar Sarngal & Ors Vs State of J&K 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 145Abdullah Danish Shervani Vs UT of J&K 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 146 Amir Hassan Mir Vs UT of J&K 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 147M/S Amira Engineers Vs Telecommunications Consultants India & Ors 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 148Judgements/Orders :Sec 125 CrPC | Muslim Husband Cannot Avoid His Liability To Maintain Unless Divorce Is Validly Pronounced And Properly Communicated : J&K&L High CourtCase Title :Mohammad Ali Bhat Vs Shafeeqa Bano & Ors Citation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 137The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court held that for a Muslim husband to avoid his liability to maintain his wife on the ground that he has divorced his wife, has not only to show that the divorce is validly pronounced in accordance with Muslim law but he has also to show that the said divorce has been communicated to the wife."It is clear that for a Muslim husband to avoid his liability to maintain his wife on the ground that he has divorced his wife, has not only to show that the divorce is validly pronounced in accordance with Muslim law but he has also to show that the said divorce has been communicated to the wife", Justice Sanjay Dhar observed. Pendency Of Prosecution No Bar To An Order Of Preventive Detention :J&K&L High CourtCase Title :Manzoor Ahmad Lone Vs UT of J&K & OrsCitation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 138The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that the pendency of prosecution is no bar to an order of preventive detention and an order of preventive detention is also not a bar to prosecution. Discharge or acquittal of a person will not preclude detaining authority from issuing a detention order."An order of preventive detention may be, made before or during prosecution. An order of preventive detention may be made with or without prosecution and in anticipation or after discharge or even acquittal. The pendency of prosecution is no bar to an order of preventive detention and an order of preventive detention is also not a bar to prosecution. Discharge or acquittal of a person will not preclude detaining authority from issuing a detention order", Justice Moksha Khajuria Kazmi observed. Sec 125 CRPC | Major Son Or Daughter Not Entitled To Maintenance, Except When A Statute Or Personal Law Comes To Aid: J&K&L High CourtCase Title : Showkat Aziz Zargar Vs Nabeel Showkat & AnotherCitation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 139The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court ruled that a major son or daughter cannot be awarded maintenance by a Magistrate in exercise of his powers under Section 125 of CR.P.C but in an appropriate case, a Family Court has jurisdiction to grant maintenance to a major Hindu daughter on the basis of a combined reading of the provisions contained in Section 125 of the Cr. P. C and Section 20(3) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act.Bigamy | Only Court Within Whose Jurisdiction Second Marriage Is Performed Has Power To Try Offence U/S 494 IPC: J&K&L High CourtCase Title : Vijay Gupta & Ors Vs Deeksha Sharma & OrsCitation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 140The Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh High Court comprising Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul ruled that in an offence falling under Section 494 IPC of performing/ contracting second marriage during the subsistence of first valid marriage, it is only the Court within whose jurisdiction the second marriage is performed which has the jurisdiction to try the case in terms of Section 177 of Criminal Procedure Code.JKL High Court Refuses To Quash UAPA Case Against Professor Accused Of Promoting Separatism, Provoking People Against Security ForcesCase Title : Abdul Bari Naik v. State of J&K and othersCitation : 2022 LiveLaw (JKL) 141The bench of Justice Sanjay Dhar noted that as per the investigation conducted by the investigating agency, the petitioner is trying to motivate the common people towards separatism and he is provoking them against the police and security forces as also against district administration."In one of the video clips, the petitioner is seen conveying to his audience that the children of Kashmir are being oppressed by the security forces and the army. In yet another video clip, the petitioner is conveying that the army is hampering the movement of the people and it is obstructing the children from going to schools which has led to closure of schools. In yet another video clip, the petitioner is seen pleading cause relating to release of a person who was in custody for...

J&K&L High Court Weekly Round Up: September 5 To September 11, 2022

Basit Amin Makhdoomi

Tags