Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 29- August 04, 2024

Nominal Index [Citations: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 480 – 505]Sajid Muhammedkutty v State of Kerala and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 480Moidutty Musliyar v Sub Inspector Vadakkencherry Police Station, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 481Rasheeda Bano v Union of India, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 482Intersource Exports (P) Ltd. Versus Deputy Commissioner Of State Tax, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 483XXX V State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 484 Mammen Varghese v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 485B Prakash v Lazitha, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 486A. A. Rahim v State of Kerala and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 487Anupama Padmakumar v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 488Bharatheeya Jyothisha Vichara Sangham v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 489National Highway Authority of India v P. V. George and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 490Anujith v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 491Litty Mary John v Manoj K. Varghese, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 492South Indian Bank v Directorate of Enforcement and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 493The Commissioner Of Income -Tax (Exemptions) Kochi Versus M/S.Kerala Cricket Association, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 494 DR. Valsamma Chacko v Leelamma Joseph, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 495Ramesh VV v Jyothi Maruthiyodan, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 496Saneesha M. S. v The Village Officers and Others, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 497 Kerala Pradesh School Teacher's Association v State of Kerala & Connected Cases, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 498Dhanya Sajith v M R Binoy Mathew, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 499Tomy T. J. v State of Kerala and Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 500Pradeep Kumar v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 501Sunil P P v State of Kerala, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 502Prakash v Vandana, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 503State v R. Baiju, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 504C K Sasidharan v The Welfare Fund Inspector & Another, 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 505Judgments/Orders This WeekIllegal 'Talaq-E-Sunnat' Not Punishable As 'Triple Talaq': Kerala High CourtCase Title: Sajid Muhammedkutty v State of Kerala and AnotherCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 480Kerala High Court in a recent judgment held that if the intention is not to pronounce instantaneous and irrevocable talaq, it cannot be considered as talaq–ul–biddat.The petitioner had sought quashing of the proceedings against him before the Judicial Magistrate First Class.The respondent had accused him of committing an offence under the Muslim Women (Protection of Rights on Marriage) Act, 2019 by pronouncing instant and irrevocable talaq on her.Prohibition Of Child Marriage Act Supersedes Muslim Personal Law : Kerala High CourtCase Title: Moidutty Musliyar v Sub Inspector Vadakkencherry Police StationCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 481The Kerala High Court has ruled that the Prohibition of Child Marriage Act, 2006 will supersede the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937. The Court stated that every Indian citizen regardless of their religion and location is bound to adhere to the law prohibiting child marriage. Justice P. V. Kunhikrishnan stated that a person's primary status as a citizen of the country takes precedence over religion. The Court stated that citizenship is primary, and religion is secondary. The Court thus noted all citizens, regardless of whether they are Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Parsi, or of any other religion, are bound by the Act.Kerala HC Directs Centre To Grant Citizenship To Two Women Who Migrated From Pakistan As Minors, Not Insist On Renunciation CertificateCase Title: Rasheeda Bano v Union of IndiaCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 482The Kerala High Court has directed the Union Government to grant Indian citizenship to two women aged 21 and 24, without insisting upon a Renunciation certificate from the Pakistan government.The Court stated that the government cannot compel the petitioners to produce a Renunciation Certificate since they migrated to India after surrendering their Pakistani passports before attaining the age of majority.Justice T R Ravi directed the Government to grant Indian citizenship to petitioners based on the non-objection certificate issued by the Pakistani government and because they had surrendered their Pakistani passports upon migrating to India as minors.Assessments Getting Time Barred By 31.03.2017 Can Continue Only Upto 31.03.2018: Kerala High CourtCase Title: Intersource Exports (P) Ltd. Versus Deputy Commissioner Of State TaxCitation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 483The Kerala High Court has held that the assessments that were getting time barred by 31.03.2017 can continue only up to 31.03.2018. The bench of Justice Gopinath P. has observed that there was no material to conclude that notice was actually issued on 18.03.2018, as it is quite unlikely that a notice dated 18.03.2018 was not served on the petitioner till 25.03.2019. It is also seen from the notice that a hearing was proposed only on 30.03.2019, and it is quite inconceivable that a notice dated 18.03.2018 will propose a hearing more than a year later on 30.03.2019.POCSO Courts Must Be Vigilant Where Mother Embroiled In Custody Battle Accuses Father Of Sexually...

Kerala High Court Weekly Round-Up: July 29- August 04, 2024

Tellmy Jolly

Tags