The Delhi High Court upheld that a husband must provide maintenance to his wife, regardless of her income, dismissing his claim that she was a “parasite.” The court emphasized respect for women’s sacrifices and reaffirmed legal obligations under the Hindu Marriage Act and Domestic Violence Act, highlighting the need for support against domestic abuse.
Today (9th September),The Supreme Court has dismissed Trinamool Congress MP Abhishek Banerjee and his wife Rujira’s plea against the ED’s summons in a teacher recruitment scam case. They are under investigation for alleged money laundering in connection with the West Bengal teacher recruitment scandal.
![[3.99 Crore Seizure Case] Tamil Nadu Govt. Moves SC Against Order Asking Police Not to 'disturb' BJP's Leader Kesava Vinayagan](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/image-44-1.png?resize=400%2C367&ssl=1)
The Tamil Nadu Government today has contested a Madras High Court decision restraining the police from summoning BJP leader Kesava Vinayagan in a cash seizure case. The Supreme Court has asked for Vinayagan’s response. The case involves the seizure of Rs 3.99 crore from train passengers, one of whom has BJP affiliations. The case is scheduled for September 20.
Days after the Karnataka government opposed the implementation of New Criminal Laws-Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS) and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA), Law and Parliamentary Affairs Minister H K Patil said the state would make 23-25 amendments to these laws before being implemented in the state.
![[Trademark Infringement Case] Delhi HC Refers Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/image-42.png?resize=447%2C367&ssl=1)
The Delhi High Court cited the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita in a trademark infringement case involving the ‘SURYA’ mark. KG Marketing’s lawsuit was dismissed and the company was prohibited from using the ‘SURYA GOLD’ mark, after admitting to fabricating newspapers in court proceedings. Defendants were also instructed to file a complaint for forgery.
Karnataka opposes new criminal laws, plans state-level amendments to address concerns, ignoring recommendations made by Chief Minister Siddaramaiah. The state aims to postpone enforcement until its suggestions are considered. The new laws replace British-established codes, sparking a broader debate on central versus state power balance in India and the need for adaptable national policies.
The Bombay High Court called out Pune police for providing false statements about a case involving 17 AIMIM members. The members were charged for a procession without permission, leading to communal tensions. The court warned of potential contempt charges if an adequate explanation for the false statement wasn’t provided. The case will continue to be heard on June 25.
![[Article 21] Allahabad HC Affirms Right of Adults to Marry & Live with Partner of Their Choice](https://i0.wp.com/lawchakra.in/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/Relationship39_-Allahabad-HC____.jpg?resize=259%2C194&ssl=1)
Today, On 10th June, The Allahabad High Court affirmed that adults have the right to marry and live with a partner of their choice, protected under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The court criticized a magistrate for sending a woman to her uncle’s home, emphasizing the fundamental rights of individuals. This landmark ruling reinforces constitutional protections and sends a strong societal message.
The Supreme Court of India has directed on 17th May, the Union Government to create a comprehensive sentencing policy to ensure fairness and uniformity in sentencing. The policy aims to avoid judge-centric decisions and disparities, emphasizing the need for transparency and adherence to fundamental rights. The court proposed the establishment of a “sentencing commission” comprising experts in various fields to develop comprehensive sentencing guidelines.
The Calcutta High Court provided relief to BJP’s IT Cell Chief, Amit Malviya, over alleged incitement of communal tensions. The court found a procedural error in the police notice issued to Malviya and directed future interrogations to be conducted via video conference with a 48-hour notice. The court also emphasized the public availability of First Information Reports (FIRs).