The Uttarakhand High Court reprimanded a runaway couple who married against family wishes but directed police protection. Justice Rakesh Thapliyal heard the case involving an 18-year-old woman and 21-year-old man facing threats from her relatives.
The Supreme Court of India ruled that a wife’s refusal to cook or do household chores isn’t cruelty, calling such expectations outdated. It said “husbands must share domestic duties, stressing marriage is a partnership, not hiring a maid, You are not marrying a maid. You are marrying a life partner,”
Today, On 20th March, The Chief Justice of India asked the lawyer to move the Delhi High Court after a runaway couple’s protection plea was mentioned before the Supreme Court of India. He questioned, “Why this step-motherly treatment to Article 226 jurisdiction?”
The Calcutta High Court reiterated that under the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 “a juvenile cannot be sentenced to more than seven years.” Since the Bangladeshi national was arrested as a minor and held for over 21 years, the Court ordered his immediate release and repatriation.
Supreme Court ruled that High Courts cannot disturb the finality of Apex Court orders. It added that non-parties affected by a judgment in rem may seek appropriate remedies in service matters.
The Bombay High Court granted maternity pay relief to a doctor and emphasised that working women must not be forced to compromise on motherhood. It said, “a woman striving for self-sufficiency should not have to sacrifice her caregiving role.”
The Delhi High Court criticized the DDA for delaying an advocate’s rightful fees, stressing that public bodies must act honourably. The court said such conduct undermines the rule of law and damages the sanctity of the lawyer-client relationship.
Chief Justice of India Surya Kant said access to justice cannot remain an abstract ideal limited to the legally empowered. He stressed it must produce outcomes for the last person in line, restoring marginalised citizens’ faith in justice.
The Madras High Court has ruled that the second wife of a retired government employee cannot claim his family pension. The court held the marriage was legally void, as it took place while the first wife was still alive.
The Bombay High Court held that a long-term intimate partnership marked by repeated cohabitation and child birth amounts to a relationship in the nature of marriage under the DV Act. It refused to quash the case against him.
