The Delhi High Court dismissed a husband’s matrimonial appeal, ruling he could not penalize his wife for delayed defence filing after failing to deposit litigation expenses on time, observing that a party cannot create disadvantage for the respondent and later claim benefit from it.
In Rameshan v. State of Kerala, the High Court permitted an accused working abroad to reply to the trial court’s questions under Section 351 BNSS through videoconferencing or an authenticated written statement. Justice C.S. Dias said there is “no legal impediment” in allowing remote or written responses.
Today, On 28th April,In the Krishna Janmabhoomi–Shahi Idgah dispute, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court order allowing the Hindu side to amend their plea, stating, “One thing is clear, amendment must be allowed,” while hearing the appeal filed by the Muslim side against the High Court order allowing the amendment.